UNION TV = CA2 PN DT -T5 U67 a \\ Wr } ! | } y al \\ i | \ aha |) } / yey if ‘\ \ | ) HH 4 il URBAN TRANSP@RTATION INI FOR THE DSABIED Marwick j january 1975 b ; ly } i. ON \ fis : a il Gs | " x ; ; : \ aii WAN | \ 4 Ny ANY e | ae ‘ \ | Nt \) mH} i L - i i ih » . . aM ul at \ a aay ee ‘A vA iy . ae . aN Ht < A / i in as a ‘an Lane nea oe vy a i a= * a —— ~~ cae - ; . ih ht i) , a i] i) Aa) aie | a, aie \ aN i Hi \ l\, i rn . Hy Wn j ‘ an i ee a a Way | i » ANY jis oh 4, > iia rh a Ky ieee A A: * \ Aye ii ee By Cs, y 7 yy \ A ‘s . \\ as ee Ne ii } Me Nee es i . WANE \e ‘i 7 ‘ i i) i) i \\ Wht iu i 7 7 é } 7 ' hi | , ii ; I wy Mh bi 4h Re | MET Ii) a\\W 7" a W ie ( i aa fy : elie i Wiliuerts ni at Hh SYACAA ALL Ah AY iN (ON NONE \\ | mM ifs ; ¥ " ByAL ; ras ¥ ys a Ske AW iy WOVE. RNY Aa AEN th i! Ye Joh ee he a} ta ; if ey vs a 7 My) ARN a ae ity | AN j AVAL AVR ay iN vi ai OER abe) \ Hive ease tee Pew OR l wh DEL Can: AAN\ v ii) I") aw ; ik \ \\ ? } tf vay PP fy} i i ih eet We ay Ca ae \\" Ae ey) SAN AH eae, ‘ wi Wigan Viger roy ns AWAY Wa TA Aa pe et Ae a SS Wit Dea || Wii un N \ \\' Pe ANS i F thi i ‘i i \e aay +. ye - a A Ne 7 Wi | NNW MT ee \\) Mle a ANA en Nic aan i Hi tity. Wine 2 fy Sea hy of Wie A : a s Fl \ , vA , yi iy i) ’ pil f AN Wy : fy ; i ane oy Y, } { La \ \ i vi -~ é } i ita i) \\F Hh hae SNE aA TS ‘ean ey a? SAW fF q \ | Ain 2) \ ode LL fae est : if uli! ij idl it j ve (Ay ae K ) Hy an AN aN, a he i il th a ii] 1 eat . oh AN | ue a iy \i m Abe WAR ! f ‘ Ny Tits tif} i ATE, ; a i : i pes 4 nh # its F Ni May nae 8 ¢ j Fr é , vy Vie y i - | } a he ‘ td 4 wee ‘ be >) ee ee Q \ oy dad) Peal i q Dp ae ee aN at) aM : \y ie = A Ye ty at “2 Government Publications PREFACE This report is submitted to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in fulfillment of Peat, Marwick and Partners' assignment to conduct surveys and transportation analysis, formulate cost estimates, and consider policy alternatives with respect to the problem of transportation for the disabled in Ontario municipalities. Peat, Marwick and Partners sincerely acknowledges its appreciation for the time and effort by hundreds of officials of disabled organizations, those who were interviewed, and the interviewing and field research staff in Metro Toronto and five other cities in Ontario. Appreciation is also expressed for the counsel of the Inter-ministerial Committee established for the study consisting of Mr. David Garner of the Ministry, Mrs. Stella Tate of the Ministry of Health, and Mr. Otto Gerandas of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. {iBRARY SS 4 ee SN Government ONTARIO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS a URBAN TRANSIT FOR THE DISABLED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ENTRODUC ELON “ANDESUMMARY one seek ate nee 6 oe eee eae ea I-1 Data Base e e e ° e © e e e e ° ° e e e e ° ° ° e e I-1 Existing scrangportaraon Practices. (5. < fo 9 te" te" cen Me I-3 Presents Governmenterolroleg ) <1 ts "ss 6) a sees es I-5 ExXperlencesuutcetae .O0LAT TOs mc wedtratst go ats 4 a etiet war Me I-7 Vehi CLessran de. qua pment Fouts eheu techs. ce et tet fet ce Tene et to te I-9 Basic Options to Improve TrenspOrrvacton, se. ote ss I-11 Policy Issues e ° ° e ° e ° e e ° ° e e ° e e ° I-14 Alternative Policy ivecrions a pa mci Chae Me ier dia I-17 PROFILE OF THE DISABLED IN URBAN ONTARIO ......2.. -.- II-1 Thesehysicatlyvehandi capped, Person: %) 6-206. <«"s ss « II-1 Number of People with Mobility Problems ...... II-5 Summary e ° e ° e ° ° ° ° e ° e e ° ° ° e e ° e e ° ITI-17 EXISTING SERVICES, POLICIES AND EXPENDITURES ..... . IlI-1 Existing Services .. Se ee re Poy eer III-1 Existing Policies and Erendienres Fl PPR ae ee III-10 Conclusions from Existing Services and Policies .. IITI-19 VEHLCLES DESTONED, FOR THE eDLSABLED +. v6 6 6 6s #6 ois IV-1 Overall State-of-the-Art ° . e e ° ° ° e ° ° e ° e e Iv-1 Special Vans e e e e e e ° e ° e ° e ° e ° e ° ° ° e IV-5 Minibuses ° ° e e ° e e ° e ° e e ° ° . e e ° ° ° ° IV-7 Regulars Pransit, Buses %. mr ts. te ts fe Mo Mae ner oe olen et IV-10 Self-Drive Vehicles ° ° ° e ° ° ° e ° ° e e e ° e ° IV-13 Station Accessibility e e ° ° e ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° IV-17 Summary and’ -Gorclvstons "Aes. Aree dees eee oe ts Iv-19 TABLE OF CONTENTS aay oe RESULTS OF TRAVEL“ BEHAVIOURSSURVE Vontpscmeunenegiits) (6) a) el 6s V-1 Survey Characteristics 5.5%.) times serene erie state ecb nels V-1 Degree of. Disabdity ys) fs eet eee cau oe V-3 Socio-Economic Statuseevic ya) ares foal ses ss V-5 Transportation, Problems. sy. ca. sent emcerett ts Beret ets starter V-7 Existing Travels benavior 9). ucts whee ee one men ee eeete ee V-12 Trips Outside: the City ca). ger icum wesw meen te are < es V-15 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS: DEMAND AND COST ESTIMATES ... VI-1 Existing Travel by User Groups. us...) us) aon sane on nouns VI-1 Definition of Future Transportation Options ..... VI-5 Demand Estimates for Transportation Options ..... VI-11 Urban Ontario Demand Estimates for Transportation OpGions: =... ++ «aeeemnianes) Eome ecu. VI-19 Cost Estimates for Transportation Options ...... VI-22 Adaptation “of Automobiles’ 1. (<.. cuentas ems a VI-29 Interpretation of Demand and Cost Estimates ..... VI-32 Summary e e e © (e, ee fe 16: “en (eo “es oe) e “« « oe 8 © .» ‘s VI-39 POLICY ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS <2. 2... 1 6 6s VII-1 Policy Issues @ oe See prery fed) ey Me 0) bey (eS wer “es verge Kelpies cee spre Bre VII-1 General Rationale for Assistance .......e.-. VII-3 Disabled User Groups. 20s) orc antottetes cite) el pene cies er i VII-6 Transportation Service Options ......+.+e«.-. VII-10 Impl ementat ion ° ee ° . 67/408) eo ) 0] en. le pee a7, 0; 16? Le VII=-2 2 Alternative Policy Directions oot), eels MNCMER, sre te soos urs VII-26 EXHIBITS II-1 Number of Physically Handicapped as Recorded by Major Organizations in Six Cities... si ais II-10 II-2 Total Number of Disabled with Mobility EConTene in Ontario Cities. . 2 nis 4. 5s (6 ceed cp eeieanas ae II-11 III-1 Summary Chart of Transportation Services for the Disabled in Selected Ontario Cities ........ IlI-3 III-2 Summary of Existing Special Services in Western Canada ee © © # @ @!-¢ Ge Fe° 7a (6s evriepee. (6 99) (09.8) 8F Cet eae III-6 IIlI-3 III-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS eae Summary of Selected Existing Special Services IqpeUS STAs Cities >.) «+ ue « . ee ree a Swedish Survey of Special pormmees proviasa DYMMUIVCLDALICLEREe etre cA at ch eh ev ete Let oe oh a4 s IIiI-5a Provincial Expenditures for Transportation ofthe’ Disablede (197574) 5 sh ok cB st ork oh 0) o's III-5b Provincial Expenditures for Transportation III-6 IV=-1 IV=2 IV-3 Iv-4 OfMeher Disab leds (i973—74)) we om ou oF ahs ot ch es aiek 1973-74 LIP Projects Providing Transportation Service to Elderly and Handicapped in Ontario . Vanand Bus Characteristics .2 4% 20s) 3). 6 es Special Van Adaptation Procedures ....... Special Van Costs ... : ; : Aine Proposed Changes for Front of Teaicel B0e OC Transpo... Dare Fae eels sane t of of of aS oh ote 6 Characteristics hs tiie INTeCGrOULVCYS) «eieulcy «tients Disabilities Represented in Each Sample .... Breakdown of Survey Respondents in Terms of Transportation Limitation ... whore wes Existing Daily Trips Per Hurateap ned Borate! ee Market Share of Each Transportation Mode by Transportation Limitation .... «+. « » «= « e Transportation Options Related to User Group . Survey Questions Regarding Improvements to EXLSCING*OYSCENE sock ames 6s ret eo Meta Re ee ba oe Present and Future Trip Rates for Transportation Options Dy User Group: 00 oe) on iene, Wa fe Mea fe 08 Future Market Share By Transportation Option and USGL GrOUD fewer. ite een hee tu SEN ae se oth et |e Demand Estimates for Improvements to Existing SELVILCES Ie Von yen athe) Men te tat Shee te Mte cet 5? at oh is® stg t« Demand Estimates for New Transportation Services Vehicle Estimates for New Transportation Services... . ° Sigh Gy iia Sr Chart a ee Urban Ontario Daily pendant ewe (his Cale Nel is. eRe ke Summary of Costs for New Transportation Services Surveyed Population .... . . ae Urban Provincial Cost Beeimates for afiniced Services ... é ° Szhs bed ales bs Adapted Auto interest (ron Mail-Out) Lh EO Revised Demand and Cost Estimates for Selected N@wrnervi Ce: OPC. Oise sus) ats Wo etka os We es cane Logic of Transportation Analysis .....+.-. VII-1 VII-2 TABLES II-1 TI-2 1I=3 II-4 II-5 II-6 II~7 TABLE OF CONTENTS ee Possible User Groups... Mie ee ee ae ae Cost Estimates for Special Gan raat tee Service Option! for All Disabled Unable to Use Public: Transitive s 2900s aleiter ten Sie el ne tea ere Metro Toronto (2,085,000) Number of Physically Handicapped as Reported by Organizations Serving the Disabled... . ° : : mes bia Metro Toronto (2,085,000) Reviced Plena for Metro Toronto to Account for Particular Gaps in Organizations’ Figures ... ; ee Thunder Bay (112,000) Number of cinetuocan’y, Handicapped as Reported by Organizations Serving the Disab led ie a. 2. se ae - Sarnia (58,000) Number of Physically thoapierarn as Reported by Organizations serving the Digablede i... Timmins (35,000) per at: ieekieneube femticeapedt as Reported by Organizations serving the Disabled are eee ele sme ee at nas Windsor (257,000) Number BE paveteaiiy Pe caneed as Reported by Organizations serving the Digab lege crns | ule ‘ evs oth cin cle Sie ot ote oils Kingston (59,000) lish beese of Pree teams Weed canned as Reported by Organizations serving the Disabledg ay. cctetcans wists. we fait w | Ger aeiee oak eM ae clalea sir MetroPToronCo. Wo cwecs st cmmet ef shel et oreo R esti eiist pk set toreuh a Ss OL A ee Ae A Ae A Fe Ch Thundér Bays oe comet cre ee cute hot aa un cima ed ake Kingston. ic screws aera sekat ee © Mom cal pl eEnetl« aac Melua Sarnia ie us. oo 50 50, cue gre odiie Ms mrss) Retire Ee Wer ts cok Gia. ie Dimming sfc. csocs te, custe ise sale antes CMeLE sbrO an 5 elas Transportation Expenditures for Metro Toronto Paid by Non-Government Organizations ....... Mobiidty Limitations tabus eee, ets en eee into ute sts Breakdown of Survey Respondents in Terms of Transportation Limitations ......+.s++s+-e. » Length, of Disabil tty ene oon, neces in ven eee Gone Special Aids< Used Mp cccae «fe vel ha sels cts ed cel «° 6) 8" 0 VII-9 VII-16 II-11 II-11 II-11 II-11 II-11 Dl—Lt TABLE OF CONTENTS eT ke y-5 AS CMCanC me CeCe. cuir sre s | ot umeane? a* fat sue (i/'0 V-6 Le¥ken i ep ill eS oe yee te Shoe Dee V-7 CUDTENCAACCEVILYsOLaCUS 0. sf le 6) 6 cis b, - vV-8 Living eArransement Sous aus coe epieeackceuis. is, yv-9 Attitudes Towards Disabled» .%. 2. i: «= . % V-10 Age Distribution - Disabled vs. General Population ... 2 at eee V-11 Income Distribution - Disabled vs. General Population ... aicmege in V-12 Employment - Disabled vs. peneeal Popaiaieion Val Se Lox USES emer iets uiciier etc vie oct em eine mars V-14 Bus Usagerand: Proplems. 9 . «ls « « «+ « « V-15 Bus Usage - Mail-Out Survey ......e-. V-16 Subway Usage vs. Bus Usage ........ V-17 Commercial Van Usage .... a aes V-18 Problems with Commercial Van perrice ee ibe Cie eee ey A ae i oR oe V= LOR vAULOPDEAVeres sure. OTL Te See Oe On eee eae V-20 Distribution of Retemt Trip Purposes ... V-21 Distribution of Existing Trips by Mode .. V-22 Existing Daily Tripl Rates for Each Mobility Limitation, Category =... . . =. « V-23. Dominant Mode for Each Trip Purpose... . V-24 Dominant Mode for Each Mobility Limitation Category vs « ‘ aus V=-25 Dominant Purpose oo ech Meni ites Ceeerory V-26 Reasons for Activity Limitations. ..... V-27 Frequency of Trips Outside the City... . V-28 Mode for Trips Outside the City ...... V=29 9 Probiems withointercity, Travels o. . ys...) 's APPENDICES A. Survey Methodology and Approach Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2024 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/31/761118914597 I_- INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Peat, Marwick and Partners was commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications of Ontario to undertake travel behaviour surveys and to study how to improve the urban transportation services for the physically disabled in Ontario. The objectives of the study were as follows: iba To define the kind of special transit services which would accommodate the needs of various types of physically handicapped persons. Ze To determine the extent to which the need for special services for the physically handicapped are currently being satisfied, and the need for additional services. ONG To research and investigate alternative service options and their costs. 4, To examine various subsidy policy options and estimate the cost for the whole of Ontario. This chapter summarizes the study, while the rest of the chapters elaborate on various aspects of it. BATA BASE During the course of the study research efforts were under- taken to obtain data on the experience of other cities, provinces and countries. Also examined were existing special service operations, types of equipment available, and costs of equipment and special services. To provide a data base of the number of disabled with trans- portation problems in Ontario, and their existing and future travel demand, the following surveys were undertaken: ie Organizations Survey of organizations serving the disabled in six different size cities in Ontario, which are, in descending order of population: Metro Toronto, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Kingston, Sarnia, Timmins. The purpose was to obtain the numbers of disabled served by those organizations, and an estimate of how many of them had transportation problems due to their disabilities. Dre Metro Toronto Personal interview, structured survey of 292 Metro Toronto disabled, whose sample included a proportional representation of each disability group in Metro Toronto. The purpose was to obtain existing travel behaviour of the disabled, their transportation problems, and possible future travel demand given additional or improved services. on Other Cities A similar survey of 306 disabled people with virtually the same questionnaire for the five other cities men- tioned above; the sample was designed to include an equal representation from each of the following groups: those who must use special vehicles, those who could be driven but cannot take public transportation, and those who can use public transportation with difficulty. he Mail-Out A mail-out questionnaire survey to a random sample of four lists of disabled people, as follows: Vocational Rehabilitation and Family Benefits Branches of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Workmen's Compensation Board, and the Rehabilitation Foundation (a private organization). The purpose of this survey was to provide a larger base of respondents (about 2,100 usable replies), and to include disabled in urban areas across the province. The results of these surveys and research efforts formed the data base for the study. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES Number and Travel Behaviour of Disabled The terms "physically handicapped" and "disabled" are used interchangeably. For the purpose of the study, we have included the mentally retarded along with the disabled population, since, in many cases, they have the same transportation problems and needs as the "physically" handicapped. Approximately 7% to 8% of the provincial population is phys- ically disabled. Our research indicates that at least 3% of the Ontario population either cannot use, or have problems in using, the public transit systems in urban centres. For the purpose of the analysis, we divided the physically handicapped with mobility problems into three categories and, based on the organizations' and personal interview surveys, we estimated the disabled Ontario urban population in each, as follows: - those disabled who are principally confined to Wheelchairs and who are best transported by a special van equipped with proper loading facilities - 15,700 - those people who do not need a special van but who cannot use public transportation - 55,600 - those people who can use public transit but have some difficulty in doing so - 80,200. I-4 From our surveys, it was found that the physically handi- capped on the average travel about half as frequently as the general population. They have a more even distribution of trips throughout the day than the general population, although there is some peaking at rush hours. They tend to have a much higher use of taxis and much lower use of public transit. Deficiencies in the Present System The problems of the disabled in coping with the existing transit system are perhaps obvious. It is very difficult, or impossible, for many to negotiate the trip from origin to destination via the regular transit system. If the transit system is difficult or impossible to use, special services, such as taxis or commercial vans that can accommodate wheel- chairs are available, but are comparatively very expensive. Transportation of disabled schoolchildren is the only major area which is public-supported. Since the disabled are overrepresented among the under-18 and the over-65 populations, and since those between these two age groups have difficulty in finding regular employment, physically handicapped people are relatively economically deprived. Our surveys showed that less than half of the disabled had family incomes of over $3,000 per annum. Therefore, the expense of taxi and special van services is even more of a burden to the physically disabled. I-5 Volunteers to drive or otherwise transport physically disabled people are only available on special occasions. Even those with families who have access to automobiles must depend on the cooperation and time of family members for their everyday transportation. PRESENT GOVERNMENT POLICIES Provincial Government Although at present there is no policy with respect to assist- ing municipalities in providing transportation services for the physically handicapped through transit subsidy programs, the province is a major supporter of transportation for the disabled. Approximately $12 million per year is now spent on transportation as a result of various provincial social programs, although about half of that amount is strictly part of a transfer payment to the poor disabled. The following are the most important programs: Le As a result of the basic legal requirement for the province to subsidize school Boards for providing transportation for the schoolchildren, about $3.6 million of the school transportation budget is spent on grants to support the transportation of physically and mentally handicapped schoolchildren. Le Another $5.5 million is spent in supplemental trans- portation payments to about 30,000 physically handicapped people in the province receiving disability pensions. 3 The Workmen's Compensation Board spends almost $1 mil- lion on transportation of those clients eligible for such assistance. I-6 4. The Homes for the Aged program allocates almost $1 million to individual Homes throughout the prov- ince for buying and operating special buses to transport the Homes' residents. De A variety of Community and Social Services programs, which include transportation, support children's institutions, mental, and other institutions, as well as the Vocational Rehabilitation Bureau, for a further $1 million. The Ministry of Health is investigating whether it should sub- sidize transportation services to various treatment and rehabilitation centres, but has no general policy at present to do so. As part of its regulatory responsibilities, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications issues special licences for people who have to drive vehicles adapted for use by physically handicapped drivers, as well as generally certifying driver capability. There are presently about 700 disabled people with special driving licences. ‘ Federal Government The federal government has little direct interest in the transportation of the physically handicapped. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is the only line department which operates some ser- vices directly, and pays for some trips of veterans. A recent significant development is the sponsorship under the Local Initiatives Program (LIP) of approximately 30 special van-type services in the province and more in other parts of Canada. LIP services are only temporary, but are of particular consequence since they will tend to stimulate a demand for transportation services in the communities in which they are operating. Local Government At the local level, some trips by physically disabled welfare recipients are paid by municipalities, usually in programs whose costs are shared by the province. There have been two recent developments at the local level - the sponsorship or pending sponsorship by transit authorities in Metro Toronto and the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality of specific trans- portation services for the disabled. In Metro Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission is undertaking a pilot program whereby those people in wheelchairs regularly employed will receive a subsidized special van service. In Ottawa, an existing LIP program designed to service the physically handicapped who cannot take transit has been taken over on an interim basis by OC Transpo. The Regional Municipality is also making minor modifications to the interior of buses to make them somewhat more accessible to the disabled. EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE ONTARIO Western European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries and Great Britain, appear to have relatively more sophisticated transportation programs for the physically handicapped than in North I-8 America. These programs are predominantly extensions of the social services provided in these countries. In Sweden, for example, most municipalities provide transportation services for the disabled, through a combination of subsidies to taxis, subsidies for adapting and acquiring private automobiles for those who meet income and driving capability criteria, and operation of special van services. The trip fare in Sweden is generally equivalent to the public transit fare; for some trip purposes, the number of trips that are subsidized are usually limited to a specific maximum monthly, like ten non-work, non- education trips per month. In Great Britain, there has been long use of special three-wheeled automobiles for disabled persons, but now the emerging policy seems to be to assist the physically handicapped person to purchase and adapt low-priced minis for their use. In Canada, there is no province whose provincial ministry responsible for public transportation has specific programs for direct assistance to the disabled, or indirectly, through subsidies to the municipalities. In Western Canada, more use is made of charitable organizations to transport disabled schoolchildren, and these organiza- tions tend to branch into limited services for disabled adults as well. In the United States, in two post-war subway projects - one is partially completed (San Francisco) and the other is in the early construction stages (Washington, D.C.) - extensive capital investment has ensured access to subway platforms by the disabled by elevator. However, these special subway station facilities have largely been ad hoc arrangements for these two cities, decided after extensive lobbying by handicapped organizations. These decisions do not constitute the official policy of the Urban Mass Transit Administration. While this agency subsidizes local transit systems and operates under legislation that stipulates accessibility of transit systems to the physically handicapped, there is no policy at this time as to how such legislation will be implemented in practice. There are, in the United States, various demonstration projects of special transit services sponsored by UMTA and federal social agencies, although no overall policies have been set. These demonstration projects consist of special transit services for the elderly or for the physically handicapped in small urban centres, or in geographically defined parts of larger urban centres. Some specially equipped buses have been added to the fleets of buses used in dial-a-bus operations, but they have not been fully used to meet disabled transportation needs. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Many kinds of vehicles have been developed to accommodate the physically handicapped, especially those in wheelchairs. In almost all cases these vehicles are adapted to use for the disabled, and are not manufactured as standard equipment. Therefore, special vehicles equipped to transport the disabled are more expensive than vehicles mass-produced. The vehicles most commonly used are as follows: 1. The converted van or maxivan that can carry 5 to 13 passengers, and is equipped with ramps, or a hydraulic or electro-mechanical lift. Standard vans are converted, with some or all of their seats removed and roofs raised. Modifications may com- prise a third to half the total cost of the vehicle, costing in total $9,000 to $12,000 (depending on options selected). 25 Minibuses, accommodating 15 to 25 people with 4 to 5 spaces for wheelchairs and electro-mechanical lifts, are now being offered as optional conversions to standard minibuses. They cost approximately $2,500 more than the standard minibus. he Larger buses, commonly used for regular transit, can have electro-mechanical lifts added and the interior rearranged to accommodate some wheelchair passengers, although few buses have been so converted. Some minor interior modifications, such as adding extra grab-bars and handrails can be done with little cost but without much improvement in their overall accessibility. The new GM-RTS bus, projected to be on the market in 1976, has a slightly lower step and wider doors. Through the Trans-Bus UMTA- sponsored demonstration project in the United States, three manufacturers are attempting to radically alter the design of the standard bus to incorporate many features, including greater accessibility to the dis- abled. Such buses are several years away from production. Hand controls and other special equipment can be added fairly easily to regular automobiles to enable some disabled to drive. Although far more expensive than automobiles, vans can also be adapted so that wheelchaired disabled can drive them. Transit station accessibility, particularly gaining access to the platform level of subways, remains an architectural and engineer- ing problem in the design of stations. Although there had been some preliminary considerations for the use of inclinators in subway stations, the elevator remains the only feasible way of providing accessibility to the severely disabled people. BASIC OPTIONS TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION The basic ways to improve transportation for the disabled are as follows: Improvements in Public Transit ie Improving the comfort of bus stops (a municipal function), rearranging the interior of buses to add grab-bars and handrails in buses, and de- signating specific seats in buses for the handicapped. Marketing programs to increase physically handicapped ridership, increase flexibility in fixed-route bus service; possibly as well sensitivity training for transit drivers. These changes might respond to some of the psycho- logical barriers of public transit to the disabled, but would definitely be of limited value in improving overall accessibility. For Metro Toronto, provide vertical accessibility to subway platforms, in new and old stations, through escalators, inclinators, or elevators. It is the present TTC policy to upgrade accessibility through escalators, while elevator access is under examination. Inclinators are not being considered, largely because they remain commercially unavailable. Escalator access will give many disabled people greater use of the subway system; inclinator/elevator instal- lations would make it possible for more people in wheelchairs to reach the platform level, but the problem remains of getting to and from the subway station and in actually riding in the subway cars, New Special Services ph Provision of a special van service with vehicles designed to accommodate wheelchairs, and which would also carry ambulatory passengers accompanying wheel- chair passengers. The service would be by a pre-booked and some demand-responsive basis, and provide door-to- door service. Such a service could be directed primarily towards those people requiring special vans or personal service beyond that which can be expected of a taxi driver, or could be extended to accommodate (a) other disabled who could not use public transit, and (b) those who could use public transit with difficulty. Provision of a taxi-type service, which would be door- to-door and primarily demand-responsive, using regular automobiles. Such a service could complement the special van service and be suitable for those who do not need a special van but cannot use public transportation, and possibly those who use public transit with difficulty. Subsidized Existing Services ee Increased financial resources could be placed in the hands of the disabled to defray costs of privately- run special van and regular taxi services. This financial assistance would help low-income disabled to have access to special vans, and others who can use taxis. Financial assistance could be provided to a public or non-profit social agency to defray costs of privately-run special van and taxi services. This kind of financial assistance could be provided by cities to complement a special van service that is restricted to those who need a special van. In this way, people who are unable to use public transit could use a special van service, or have their taxi trips subsidized. ae Assistance to acquire regular automobiles, equip them with hand controls or other adaptations, and to under- go driver training. Such a program would build on the motivation of dis- abled individuals to be independent, and possibly also reduce demand for a special van service, since eligible disabled might prefer instead to drive their specially equipped automobiles. Costs for New Special Services Options The costs of new special services depend on the number of disabled, the number of municipalities that would introduce these new services, and the extent to which the disabled could be attracted to the new services. Based on the surveys and assumptions as to their results, and research into costs, estimates have been made as to what the total annual capital and operating cost could be if all municipal- ities in Ontario over 10,000 in population establish special services at 30c fare level. The estimates for the least expensive service option for the disabled who cannot use public transit is $18 to $20 million annually for the province. Such a service would provide special vans for those that needed them and a taxi-type service for the remainder of the dis- abled who cannot use public transit. The cost per trip would be about $6.50 for special van and $3.50 for a taxi-type service. These costs are total costs, which would presumably be shared by the province and municipalities in a cost-sharing formula to be determined. In addition, these costs would be offset by a modest revenue, assuming a fare of 30¢ or some equivalently low sun. The actual cost of implementing special transit programs for the disabled can be reduced by limiting the eligibility of the user - e.g. by trip purpose, number of trips, or degree of disability; it can also be done by limiting the service level or by instituting a higher fare structure. The data base produced by this study can be used to assist in costing several alternative sets of implementation pro- cedures. POLICY ISSUES The setting of policy must be placed in context with the cost of the program. Cost estimates for new services were outlined above, and can be compared to the current level of direct spending by the province of about $55 million on transit subsidies to municipalities. The first policy question is whether there is a need for improved or new transit services. In the study, we conclude that there is such a need. The second question is if assistance is provided, what part of the physically handicapped population should receive this assistance. The most appropriate group would seem to be the most severely disabled (i.e. those who cannot use public transit), since their needs on an individual basis are greater than the less severely disabled. In considering improvements to existing transit services, new services, and subsidies to existing commercial services, it is suggested that new special services be established, complemented by subsidization of taxi trips for the disabled who cannot use public transit, where appropriate. It is suggested that some effort might be directed toward improving the existing transit system, although the issue of providing elevators to the Metro Toronto subway system should really be separated from the mainstream of disabled transportation programs. The latter solution is expensive and assists relatively few people, but may be appropriate on political criteria. In terms of administrative policy, the major question is which provincial ministry should be responsible for the thrust of the new services and improvements of existing transit services programs. Since it is a transportation problem that is, or can be, linked to the transportation of the regular public, it is suggested that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be provided a mandate to undertake the required programs. However, if the transportation solutions are viewed as extensions of social policy, the Ministry of Community and Social Services could undertake the responsibility for establishing new services or subsidizing disabled people and social organizations to defray transportation costs. The key requirements in a program to establish social services are (a) sufficient financial and technical support to municipalities to induce them to participate in a special transit program, and (b) flex- ible guidelines for municipalities to establish disabled transportation services according to their own perceived requirements. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications' respon- sibilities could be to establish cost-sharing procedures, initial budget ceilings, and service guidelines for municipalities. The Ministry of Community and Social Services could best support MTC through assistance at the local level in stimulating municipal participation and planning for the appropriate new services in particular communities. Community and Social Services could also establish on a province-wide basis a program to adapt automobiles for use by the disabled. To implement the disabled transportation programs, MTC should establish financial arrangements, interim service guidelines, and possibly underwrite the early municipal projects as demonstration programs. ALTERNATIVE POLICY DIRECTIONS In the concluding chapter we suggest three basic alternative directions for the province, as follows: - new special services for all the disabled with transportation problems - limited, but substantial, funding of disabled transit service programs that would allow for experimentation and the further development of policies - little action at present, which would incur the risk of political ad hoc decisions forcing the province to establish undesirable programs applicable to all municipalities. It is proposed that the province adopt the second option, given the lack of knowledge and experience to undertake a full-scale program at this time, and the continued likelihood of increased poli- tical action by disabled groups to initiate some provincial response. > eee a9 998 arth Surtrivwe, onal 1 ie qereaty ~~ aseyagwe a vy ith! Fen. eae Te 0) Sub teee, sa) ane gate igtdre rt ha anti i emma Mate ky ingg’ oe ecb lead my oe alia, een dom lait eae hae il AL a ieee 2a Teta ee Aas ee ee onterm 1% ese Seng ehh ap mre NCROR II-1 It - PROFILE OF THE DISABLED IN URBAN ONTARIO In planning for improved transportation services for the disabled, it is important to understand who they are, and for estimating the market for new or improved services, how many of them live in the urban parts of Ontario. In this chapter, we define who we mean when the terms "disabled" or "physically handicapped" are used and estimate their total number in urban Ontario.! THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSON The physically handicapped for the purposes of this study are defined as people who have mobility problems and, therefore, cannot use the public transportation system or have difficulty using it. Some examples are: - an elderly person with arthritis, or heart or respiratory problems, who has difficulty climbing stairs, getting on or off buses, and in standing in moving vehicles - a person with cerebral palsy or other disease of the nervous system who can walk with great dif- ficulty, with aids but is too unsteady to use the public transportation system on a regular basis alone, and has difficulty in hailing a taxi - amentally retarded person who is physically able, but cannot travel unaccompanied Be St arte rete on a er as Seve eee OE ln es ee 1. "Physically Handicapped" and "Disabled" are used interchangeably in this report. ''Disabled" is actually more precise, since we include the mentally handicapped as well as the physically handicapped. - a person suffering from epilepsy who has no problems travelling except that for the occa- sional seizure with which bus drivers and other passengers cannot cope because of a lack of familiarity with the problem - a person with a speech defect, or who is deaf, and cannot easily communicate with bus and taxi drivers - a person with paraplegia, multiple sclerosis or some other crippling disease or accident that confines him to a wheelchair - a blind person who is travelling in unusual sur- roundings, in winter, or in a public transportation system with confusing textures or where the driver does not call out the stops - a person who is temporarily disabled due to an accident or illness, and who has diffi- culty coping with the public transportation system - a person with a combination of physical handicaps, since many people suffer from more than one dis- ability. This definition of the physically handicapped person stems directly from the purpose of this study which is to address the trans- portation problems of physically handicapped in Ontario cities. It is comprehensive since it includes all types of disabilities of a temporary nature; it is restrictive since it includes only the disabled with mobility problems. This definition still has some practical problems and some explanation is provided to indicate how it was interpreted for the pur- poses of this study. IT-3 Those Who Are Included The disabled include the following: all physical disabilities, and also the mentally retarded. These people may have no physical handicaps but have much the same mobility problems as the physically handicapped those in certain institutions, primarily elderly institutions, and those confined to hospitals and other treatment centres. Transportation require- ments for many of these people may be low, but they do have mobility problems those who have mobility problems because they are temporarily physically handicapped, as a result of some disease or accident. This would include those who require hospital treatment, as well as those treated outside a hospital. It is recognized that temporarily disabled people generally have less of a problem than permanently disabled, since short-term transportation arrangements are more feasible than long-term ones the elderly are included provided they are phys- ically disabled for there are many elderly with no mobility problems. It is estimated that about a third of the population over 65 is restricted in their mobility because of physical handicaps. However, it is acknowledged that there is, some- times, no clear distinction between the aging process and specific disability for the elderly. Therefore, a fairly generous definition of a phys- ically handicapped person would include the elderly who are disabled, as well as those who just feel they are slowing down. Those who are Excluded We do not include among the disabled the following: those who have psychological problems (i.e. no brain damage) with certain aspects of transporta- tion are not included, unless they are in some way TI-4 physically handicapped as well. Such problems of a purely psychological nature might include fear of crowding or fear of being robbed or molested - women in the latter stages of pregnancy may have difficulties with the transit system, climbing stairs, etc; however, this is a natural state of being and pregnant women are not included among the physically handicapped; nor are obese people considered part of the physically handicapped population - inebriates and people on drugs. It is believed that these people have self-induced temporary disabilities which may lead to mobility problems, but whose particular solutions are unique - transportation barriers for the illiterate or non- English speaking people are presumed to be related to improved information programs, rather than to new or improved transportation services. These people and those encumbered with luggage or with children are not to be included as part of the physically handicapped population - another important exclusion are those who are economically handicapped, who are restricted in their low mobility because of their low income. Others may have special transportation problems because of deficiencies of public transportation services, such as the wives of low-income families in suburban communities, or children too young to travel unaccompanied. Some of these distinctions may be somewhat arbitrary, but the intent is to focus on those people who are clearly disabled on a per- manent basis. Some of the above would be beneficiaries of improvements to the existing public transportation system (as we would all be). Others could be either included or excluded as part of those eligible for special transportation services designed for the handicapped, subject to future policy decisions. NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY PROBLEMS The basic problem in estimating the number of physically handi- capped people in Ontario is that it is the number of disabled with mobility problems in urban areas that is important, rather than the total number of the disabled in Ontario. While there may be x thousand phys- ically handicapped people in all of Ontario, there is a sub-set of x thousand whose disability causes them transportation problems in urban centres. The problem is, therefore, to determine how many physically handicapped have mobility problems due to their physical handicap and how many of them live in urban centres in the Beavincele 2. Extensive surveys of the general population have been conducted in II-5 Canada (10,000 households), the U.K. (83,000 households), and the U.S. (84,000 households) to determine the incidence of major disabilities in the general population. Such surveys, each with various definitions and sampling procedures appear to identify about 7% to 8% of the general population being physically handicapped, or 550,000 to 700,000 in Ontario. As a matter of comparison, some groups of physically handicapped people that the Province of Ontario provides assistance to are as follows: - 34,000 people currently receive disability pensions from the Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. These people are in need of financial assist- ance and are physically handicapped or mentally retarted - 3,000 people currently receive maintenance allowances from the Vocational Rehabilitation Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Approximately 54% of these are emotionally disturbed as opposed to 46% who are phys- ically disabled - 400,000 claims per year are received by the Workmen's Compensation Board, while 7,500 people are on the permanent disability lists. - 50,000 people (approx.) are currently in provincially-sponsored homes for the aged, nursing homes, and OHC units for the disabled. These people have a combination of physical disability and eccnomic problems. 11-6 Approach to Estimating Total Numbers The essence of the numbers problem is to estimate the number of physically handicapped who have mobility problems. After some research into the matter, it was concluded that there are three basic approaches to obtaining more accurate estimates of the number of phys- ically handicapped with mobility limitations. They are as follows: A. Estimates based on the surveys of the general popu- lation identifying the incidence level of major disabilities,i.e. the household survey results. Bs A random sample survey of the general population, specifically with the objective of obtaining esti- mates of the disabled with mobility limitations. C. Survey of the organizations serving the physically handicapped to determine their estimates of the number of disabled with mobility problems. Approach A: Past Surveys As mentioned earlier, there have been extensive household surveys of the general population to reveal the incidence of various disabilities in the general population. However, the Canadian” and U.S. surveys provide very limited information with respect to mobility, and are, therefore, not usable. On the other hand, the British survey did 3. "Canada Sickness Survey'', Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1951. 4. “Age Pattern in Medical Care, Illness and Disability, U.S. July 1963-June 1965"", U.S. Public Health Service. 5. "Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain", Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Social Survey Division, 1969. 4 specifically ask questions related to mobility. Responses were classi- fied according to the following categories: - get out on own, no aids or difficulty - get out on own, with aids - get out only if accompanied - get about house with mechanical aids - chairfast bedfast. The problem with using the British survey results to define the numbers of physically handicapped for transportation planning pur- poses (apart from the possible lack of applicability to Ontario) is that the survey did not go one step further. Questions about mobility were not related to transportation needs. For example, it was not specifically asked how many people need a special vehicle for transpor- tation, how many people do not need a special vehicle but cannot use public transportation, and how many people use public transportation with difficulty. These are the classifications of mobility restrictions that are more directly useful to transportation planning. Approach B: General Survey Since existing household surveys do not provide the desired estimates, one approach to deriving the number of physically handicapped in transportation-related mobility classifications is to survey a large II-7 II-8 enough sample of the general population asking specific transportation- related questions. This approach has been used in at least three 6 documented cases. The results of past surveys aimed specifically at transporta- tion were judged to be insufficient to extrapolate to Ontario. A more rigorously organized survey of the general population was seriously considered as part of this transportation planning study. It was rejected on the basis that to undertake such a survey with sufficient accuracy would be too expensive in relation to the usefulness of such accurate information. Approach C: Physically Handicapped Organizations It was concluded that Approach C - a survey of organizations serving the physically handicapped - would be the most cost-effective method of estimating the number of physically handicapped with mobility problems. Therefore, each charitable organization serving a particular disability group was asked to provide the number of those people who could be visibly identified in that disability category, and the number of those who had mobility problems. 'Visibly'' identify means those on mailing lists or otherwise recorded by the organization. 6. In London, Ontario, everyone in the London telephone directory was telephoned under the auspices of a LIP grant, simply to identify disabled people for further interviews. In Ottawa, a mail survey to nearly 5,000 homes in a particular geographic area in the city was undertaken, also under a LIP grant. An attempt was made to estimate the potential demand for a special transportation shared service in Ottawa from this survey. A third survey was conducted in Washington for the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in which about 5,000 households were telephoned and asked to indicate whether there were severely handicapped people living in those households. Suitable respondents were interviewed in further depth about transportation problems. Wherever there were no organizations, or where organizations representing disability groups were unable to visibly identify their "clients", estimates of people in that disability category were made. To make these estimates, we had to refer to incidence level statistics derived from the household surveys cited above. For example, some asso- ciations in Metro Toronto were unable to identify the number of mobility limited people, e.g. heart ailments, arthritis, and respiratory or tuberculosis disabilities. Estimates for these disabilities were made based on the general incidence level of these disabilities. Obvious gaps understating specific major disabilities by charitable organi- zations were covered in this way. A survey of organizations was conducted in six cities of various sizes, The steps in the approach were as follows: de Survey by letter and follow-up telephone calls of charitable and non-government organizations serving the physically handicapped. This survey was conducted in Metro Toronto, Kingston, Timmins, Thunder Bay, Sarnia, and Windsor. Zs Each organization was asked to identify the number of physically handicapped served by that organization in the following categories: - those who cannot use public transportation, i.e. those who cannot travel by bus, subway, or streetcar - those who can travel by bus (or subway in Metro Toronto) but have difficulty taking the bus (or subway ) - those who are physically handicapped but have no transportation problems. II-9 TesoL Teuta sioujzieg pue yotmiey ‘3e0d aise PR GREO OTTqGnNd eyeL ued paestAsy o}UoIO] 012M uot eqiodsuelzy OTTqGNd ®syxeL ItTGNd FAeL UeO zouue) Saand1d ,SNOILVZINVDYO NI Sd¥D WOd INAODOV OL OLNOWOL OWLAN WOA SAMNDIA CASTATA 000‘S80‘°Z 000° SE 000‘ ZIT 000°8S uot ze[ndog [e101 uoTjeqiodsuelzy DTTqNg oyeL OtTqnd exeL uep} —— youuep SHILIO XIS NI SNOILVZINVOUO YOCVW Ad daddoowd SV GaddVOIGNVH ATTIVOISAHd dO UHEWNN T-II LIATHXa ojU0IO, O199K SUTUMIT uoqzs3suTy 1OSputTM Aegq Jepunyy, etures II-10 No attempt was made to separate the "bedridden" from those who cannot use public transportation, and some of the people included in this group have virtually no need for transportation. However, organizations tended to exclude among those served people who are hospitalized permanently or who are completely homebound. 6 Careful attention was paid to avoid duplication with overlapping lists. In the smaller cities, not all disability categories had organizations repre- senting them, and some multi-disability organizations were asked to break down their numbers according to disability. 4. The estimates were of handicapped people who were visible in some form or other, e.g. on their mailing list, had been served by that organization, or iden- tifiable in some other way. Not acceptable were unsubstantiated general estimates of the number of people with that disability by that organization serving them. There was a problem more particular to Metro Toronto than the smaller urban centres who seem to be able to visibly identify more easily those who are phys- ically handicapped in those communities. De For the disabilities that were under-represented by lack of an organization serving them in Metro Toronto, an estimate was made in consultation with people knowledgeable about that disability, primarily based on the incidence level estimates based on the household surveys in Canada, Britain and the United States. Results of Surveys of Total Numbers On Exhibit II-1 is a summary table of the results of the survey of organizations in six cities. This summary shows that with the ex- .ception of Metro Toronto, 2.1% to 3.2% of the total population either cannot take public transportation or have difficulty with public trans- portation, as reported by major organizations. The Toronto figure, as Ssioujyieg pue YOTMAeW °*43P98d ‘oTIe}JUQ UeGIN JO 4sea dy 03 eQeTOde1Qxe 03 pesn useq sAeY peseAiINsS S8TITO Jey}IO OATF GYR UT peTqesTp Jo saBequeoied ay} ‘seinsTF oO}RUOAO] O1ZEW FYI FO uotqdaoxe 94} YITIM “E *Aoamns ,suotjeztue3zio ay Aq pepiodei1 siequnu 3yy uey} eqeinooe azom aie Aay} Jey} pezeuryse ST 3T soUTS ‘oJUOIOJ, O1FOP AOF SOAINBTJ pesTAet spnyTOUT sisqunN °Z “snsus) T/6T 2U} Woly poATiep st seinstz uoTje{ndod ,seTITO ey} Fo Jeputemer syy ‘“suotjzetndod [etoTFjo oy} WoAF ASsFITpP Kew sny} pue *‘satsepunog [euotTse1 1o TedtoTunu 9y UITA WIoJUuOD skeMTe Jou seop yoTYyM ‘pefeains eoie Tedtotunm ey} SapnToOUT seTATO xXTS 10F uotjze{[ndod Teo, °T oos‘ Ist 000°86E°S Ee Fee O00SOT 2240 SaTqATO - 007° 62T 000‘ TSS‘4 (QTsuez} OJ sjoe1QUOD aqeatid 3utTpnTour) SeT}Tioy3ne IITsueiz YQTA SeTatTTedtotunu — otTiejugQ TTe 02 poqejtode14xy SszTnsey SetatD XTS Gi927) 007° ET Ce" 1) 008 °9 (%E°T) 009'9 000‘1ZS pefaains setatO PATA 19470 C42) oo *S9 (%8°T) OOT‘ZE (772 Te SU0e Se 000‘sS80°z ORUOIO], 013 eH sue[qoig zou ard UqTM zuoTqeqiodsuesy quorqetndog ~ SaT3I) oTze}UQ Fo uot uotzejizodsuedly, qeqaodsueazay ot TqQng OTTqng eS ION PTNoD TeqOL YIM TeIOL asm p—tnoy oum Aauy, WUeAXY 2yQ OL petqestqd z9qunn peTqestqd t9qunn (OOL 3821e9u 03 pepunoy) SHILIO OITYVINO NI SNH1TdOdd ALITIGON HLIM GaTAVSId JO YHENAN TVLOL C7II LIGIHXG mentioned above, is under-represented since no organization could visibly estimate the number of physically handicapped in three major disability categories. The second part of Exhibit II-1 shows revised figures on the number of physically handicapped in Metro Toronto. This has made the number of physically handicapped in Metro Toronto more consistent with the general average level of those who are experiencing transportation problems in other cities. The detailed results of the organization survey are provided in Tables 1 to 7 at the end of the chapter, showing the number of visible physically handicapped identified by the organi- zations in each of the six urban areas and the revised numbers for Metro Toronto. To show the total figure for Ontario, the results of the survey of the other cities have been extrapolated to the province and to those cities with transit systems. These results are shown on Exhibit II-2 and show that 151,500 Ontario residents in cities over 10,000 in population have mobility limitations. The corresponding fi- gures for cities with transit services is 129,400. Survey Accuracy The survey results represent the combined estimates and best guesses of hundreds of people and judicious use of past surveys. They are not as accurate as could be expected from an extensive household survey of the general population, but are sufficient to describe the potential market for transportation services. ED*11 II-12 Among the problems with the survey results is the recurring question of whether there are not some disabled people "hidden" from society, not counted by any organization. Such people might include an elderly person with failing eyesight, but who is too proud to register with the CNIB; or it might include a disabled person overprotected by his/her family and not registered by any organization. It is virtually impossible to find this out, except by extensive household survey. Since there are probably a number of people in this category, the survey results probably underestimate the total number of physically disabled. Another problem is that the organizations’ figures as a per- cent of the population varied widely from city to city. For example, those with hearing problems ranged from .06% of the population in Thunder Bay to .35% in Metro Toronto (revised). This is largely because dif- ferent cities have organizations with different emphases and degrees of initiative. Some organizations, especially in smaller cities, tended to encompass many disabilities. The discrepancies among cities for each disability group are much larger than the differences in total disabled population. There- fore, while the reported incidence of specific disabilities varies considerably, the sum total of all disabled people is roughly similar from city to city. There are some strengths in the use of organizations' data on a collective basis. First, more than half of disabled people (according to our survey of the disabled population) have multiple disabilities, but it appears that the vast majority of individuals have an association with only one organization. In any given community, then, the majority of the disabled are identifiable by the particular mix of charitable and social service organizations that historically serve that community. Second, the data covers all those disability groups who have mobility problems. We checked whether there were major disabilities that might increase the number of disabled with mobility problems. Possibly, some people with diabetes or ulcers, two major disabilities not represented in the figures, might have mobility problems, but repre- sentatives of organizations serving these disabilities maintain that mobility problems do not exist for these two disabilities. The number of disabled elderly were difficult to estimate since there are no "disabled elderly" organizations. Many of the elderly suffer from disabilities surveyed and are thus included in the estimated figures derived from the appropriate organizations. We also included homes for the aged and other elderly institutions among the organizations surveyed, and thus are reasonably confident of including the more severely disabled elderly. There remain the elderly with mobility problems who are not included in the organizations' data and who are not institu- Pionaliecae Tees An attempt was made to include a large sample of elderly in the mail-out survey through the retirement pension mailing lists, but this was not possible due to prohibiting clauses in the federal statutes. Some surveys of this nature would be helpful in clarifying the incidence and type of mobility limitation among the elderly. II-13 II-14 Age, Climate, Size Variations Among Cities We examined the variations among the different cities surveyed that might be attributable to age, climate, size, or other possible factors. The survey, we feel, is not sufficiently refined to draw more than general conclusions from the overall results. However, there is no conclusive evidence to disprove that the incidence of people with mobil- ity problems is fairly uniform among cities of different sizes and geographic locations in the province. The difference between Metro Toronto and the rest of the cities is believed to be due to the estimating procedures, as outlined above. Prior to the study, there were two conflicting hypotheses as to the results of such a survey. One hypothesis predicted that the diversity of life and the specialized medical and other services in Metro Toronto would attract the physically handicapped. The other pre- dicted that the smaller centres would retain the physically handicapped population, since handicapped individuals probably would remain in their hometown environment within their network of friends and family. While the survey does not appear to be conclusive, it tends to support the second hypothesis, since the incidence of disabled with mobility problems appears to be roughly similar in each atts. Variations on account of weather (e.g. Timmins vs. Windsor) or age distribution were examined but did not seem to affect disability incidence levels. oe The household surveys of U.K., Canada, and U.S.A. did not examine the question of whether incidence of disability varies with size of municipality. In summary, the problems with identifying correctly the disabled population with mobility problems are numerous. Without a rigorous, extensive household survey, the statistical accuracy of any estimating procedure will be difficult to determine. Factors which would tend to increase the numbers of disabled with mobility problems beyond our estimates include: - exclusion of "hidden'’ physically handicapped population - underestimate of elderly with no disability but with mobility limitations - exclusion of disability groups or weak represen- tation of disability groups in certain cities. Factors which would tend to discount our estimates include the following: - double counting of people with joint organiza- tional affiliations - possible inflated estimates by organizations of their clientele, or at least the estimate of numbers with mobility problems. On balance, the totals of the number of disabled identified from our surveys are probably on the low side. They should be considered as minimum figures. In Exhibit II-2, the extrapolated total for municipalities with transit systems was 138,000. While we tentatively conclude that this figure is probably low, we emphasize that it remains an estimate for general planning purposes only. IT-15 I1-16 Temporarily Handicapped The temporarily handicapped have not been fully identified through the surveys of organizations. There are no "temporarily" handicapped organizations as such, and their numbers are difficult to determine. The temporarily disabled schoolchildren with mobility problems can be singled out (there are about 3,000 to 4,000 in Ontario at any given time), since they must be transported to school through special arrangements. Other figures are available, but are not very helpful. Admis- sions to hospitals are recorded (1,400,000 each year), but give no indication of those with temporary mobility limitations. Similarly, the number of Workmen's Compensation claims are known (400,000 per year, most of them minor), but the claims total does not indicate mobility limitation. The Canada Sickness Survey established that about 5% of the population suffer from a year-long illness, but again there is no indication of mobility problems. The temporarily disabled are a large unknown, but the limited duration of their condition sets them apart from the permanently dis- abled. Special arrangements can be made with relatives, friends, and employers, and short-term costs are easier to bear. Nevertheless, temporarily disabled people do have their mobil- ity problems. For example, low-income people without access to automobiles, who are too disabled to travel by public transportation for treatment at medical facilities, sometimes face crushing transportation expenses. Therefore, although their numbers have not been added to the total figures, later sections of this report deal with particular problems of the temporarily disabled. SUMMARY In the study, we consider the physically handicapped to in- clude all those people who, because of their physical disability afflicting them on a temporary or permanent basis, have transportation problems, in Ontario urban areas where there exists public transportation. In Ontario, there are probably a minimum of 137,000 physically handicapped people with mobility problems in municipalities with transit authorities, distributed roughly equally in proportion to the populations of individual cities. These figures become in fact the potential market for new or improved transportation services designed for the physically handicapped. The results of the travel behaviour surveys are provided in subsequent chapters, showing the expected demand for new or improved services by the total market. TI-17 TABLE II-1 METRO TORONTO (2,085,000) NUMBER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AS REPORTED BY ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DISABLED poe | Cannot Can Take Public Take Public Transportation Transit With Difficult Can Use Public] Transportation | Regularl Total Disabilit 1, Arthritic & rheumatic sufferers as recorded by units in Toronto hospitals 2. Heart sufferers (recorded by 3 cardio- vascular units, & 2 major hospital coronary departments total) Ontario Mission for the Deaf 5. Ontario Federation for the Cerebral Palsy (Bellwoods Park House) 6. Canadian Cancer Society 7. Muscular Dystropy Association 8. Multiple Sclerosis Society 9. Canadian Paraplegic Association | i 35) -CNEB 4. Canadian Hearing Society (Lyndhurst Lodge) 10. Tuberculosis & Respiratory Association 11. Stroke sufferers (as recorded by Sunnybrook Hospital) 12. Association for Mentally Retarded: - institutions - residences - workshops - schoolchildren 13. Schoolchildren with Board of Education 14. Ontario Society for Crippled Children 15. Parkinson's Disease Association 16. Spina Bifida Association 17, Metro Chapter of Ontario Epilepsy Assoc. 18. Elderly who are physically handicapped as recorded by: | h | | - Metro Homes for the Aged | ~ Senior Citizens’ Apartments | - Nursing Homes %* There are no specific numbers available for those being treated at clinics treating tuberculosis and respiratory problems. Peat, Marwick and Partners *soein3TjJ O1}aW JO UOTSTAVAT [eUTJ BULMOT[OJ UOTIATPPY x 897 °8TI | :STVLOL | | ueip{tyD) petddtap a0z ARatoos oFzejUO SUOTINATISUT “Set UT BUTATT ATIepPTa uotTjetoossy Asda, tdy OT1IeIUO ZY FO AaqdeYyD O1}70EW uoT}eTOOSSy eptytqg eutds Sl91VFJNs vsseastq s ,uosuTyAed popraejzoy AT[eIUeW 10;F bho, Sle1VFJNS sy014S Slelesjns qy pue gL uoTIeTOOSSy oTZe[dei1eg ueTpeue) STSOI9TOS eTdTITNW uotjetoossy Aydo1jshq ze[nosny A}ZSITIOS AVDUeD UPTpeURD Asjed [eaqeia9g AOF uoTIeAVpay oTzeRUO Sjuowiteduy [enstA sjucomitedmy 3utiesyq Slalsjjns 4ie9y Sl9A9FIJNS OfJeumsyA pue It TAYIAV TeI0L [euTd I ~UFTY | | ITI FqeSTG uotjej10dsuedij, uotTjejazodsuray oOTTqng OTTGnd eyeL ueo 9FTGnd eyeL ued eyeL JouueD SaaNOLTaA ,SNOILYZINVOUO NI SdVO YVINOILeVd wod LNAODOV OL OLNOYOL OMLEWN YOd SAUMOLTA C4STAda 000 S80 °2) OLNOYOL OXLAN TABLE II-3 THUNDER BAY (112,000) NUMBER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AS REPORTED BY ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DISABLED Cannot Can Take Take | Take Public Public Public Transit With Transit Organization Transit Difficult Regularl Arthritic Society Heart disease recorded by hos- pital staff in Thunder Bay CNIB Canadian Hearing Society | Cerebral Palsy | Canadian Cancer Society Cancer Treatment Centre M.D. Society Multiple Sclerosis Soc. for Crippled Children Northwest Crippled Children Schoolchildren | Senior City Old Aged Home Paraplegics Assoc. recorded by hospital treatment them in TB TB and RD Association Strokes - Hospital Assoc. for Mentally Retarded | V.0O.N. | Lakehead Rehabilitation Centre Organizations Excluded from Listings because of Overlaps: Rehabilitation Industries Harmony Place Senior City(DVA) Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE II-4 SARNIA (58,000) NUMBER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AS REPORTED BY ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DISABLED Take Public Transit With Organization CNIB Lambton Association for Deaf Lambton County C.P. Association Muscular Dystrophy Association Multiple Sclerosis Crippled Children's | Treatment Centre Residents of Nursing Homes and Senior Citizens' Apartments Allocation for Mentally Retarded: - adults | - children - pre-schoolers Students now Attending: - elementary school - secondary school | Receiving treatment identified by hosp. Physiotherapy Department Stroke patients receiving therapy identified by hospital Doctors specializing in TD and RD sufferers Cancer Society Therapy O.P. not previously previously mentioned Totals: Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE IL-5 TIMMINS (35,000) NUMBER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AS REPORTED BY ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DISABLED Cannot Can Take Take Take Public Public Public Transit With Transit Organization Transit Difficult Regularl Arthritic & rheumatic sufferers as recorded by treatment units in Timmins Heart disease sufferers as re- | corded by St. Mary's Hospital CNIB Cerebral Palsy Association Canadian Cancer Society Muscular Dystrophy Association Multiple Sclerosis Ontario Society for Crippled Children Remainder of schoolchildren Homes for Aged, Nursing Homes, Senior Citizens' Apartments Paraplegics recorded by St. Mary's Hospital Physiotherapy Department | TB & RD recorded by St. Mary's Respiratory Clinic Strokes as estimated by incidence level Mentally Retarded roma: renee 1.670 Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE II-6 WINDSOR (257,000) NUMBER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AS REPORTED BY ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DISABLED Cannot Can Take Take Take Public Public Public Transit With Transit Organization Transit p Total CNIB | 300 Deaf & Hearing Impairments : 225 Cerebral Palsy aS Red Cross Society 45 Multiple Sclerosis Society 300 Ontario Society for Crippled Children Spe, Remainder of schoolchildren 39 Homes for Aged, Nursing Homes | Senior Citizens' Apartments | 864 Paraplegic victims 10 Respiratory disease sufferers recorded through cases under CSS Rehabilitation 316 Mentally Retarded 282 War Amputees Association | 200 Rehabilitation for Disabled | | 150 V.O.N. records with - Arthritic sufferers 1005 - Heart sufferers Se25U - Stroke sufferers eee Rs: Totals: Oe 922 Peat, Marwick and Partners , ot r ¥ y> FE Lae is 2 a vie ' : - Nr i ' , . i Vee aon i elit i" . rf a , f aaneaous bin rnc ain 4 ay hire ih » A Gna iH at) et ' . a He TRENT Taare TT tae ae Pee sacl Ml teadteie re yr evi r , iva 474 Lj we fan Bt . 7 relnst? Le i pj oN | arama ity cz. ' oe sles wo . Pet 4 ee . & ' ak 7 : ; ; | et re h Py i = ee a 4 ‘; 4 AD ies | Oral } «f 7 a ‘I Lhe = + “i z i] ; ‘ ' yyataoe i] te, . e ; z 7 : . a ' ath? tietoady [ ‘ ‘ =I i in a | T Pn | BD if evestincs' oe =F . g ‘tial F neee iH hgh, Rabeby Mme, | es of i uae y 1 f" ' f 7 n ; J on is yi i ’ ’ ie ) } L¥ ' ey f L] t ai i is é i zl : v P } | ‘ . Pe ap? 4 ‘ . fl 4 ; $ ip } H —" q\ 9+ tor em A ay es an ee “" TABLE II-7 KINGSTON (59,000) NUMBER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AS REPORTED BY ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DISABLED Cannot Take P.T. Can Take Take with Pl Organization P.T. Difficulty | Regularl Canadian Arthritic Society at Queen's Heart Disease Sufferers recorded popu- lation KGH Coronary Disease Unit CNIB Canadian Hearing Society cerebral Palsy Association Canadian Cancer Society as recorded by KGH Cancer Clinic Muscular Dystrophy Association Multiple Sclerosis Society Society for Crippled Children Remainder of Schoolchildren registered with the School Boards Residents of Homes for the Aged, Nursing Homes, & Senior Citizens' Apartments Canadian Paraplegic Association Tuberculosis & Respiratory Association CVA Strokes as estimated from incidence level Association for Mentally Retarded Parkinson's Foundation Spina Bifida Association Canadian Hemophilia Society Ontario Epilepsy Association TOTALS: COTE PK Cas Pe EEE: Peat, Marwick and Partners A i enc ; mf or ia ¥ 2 ‘ c? ~~ oe " = na —_ ————T ao a ay pecan : | “ASL j i | ‘ Ps ; ; a0 es i | { } nit . ' Staats - Co] vA ; => ; ; - : ; ) noxdebydaad: ales teed | ! milee ey ; * 5 yisiat eeecgl ee ae Og >71 : ; . } } : : 7 Lez : y 7 7 ; : > } site is i Ww 4 tp v7 . j ne . : é ai : ¢ i (7 i] ‘vabde a og _ |= ee ee : ’ ta : y- : wont ohd 298 dnged pa fast III - EXISTING SERVICES, POLICIES AND EXPENDITURES In this chapter we provide background information on the local, national, and international level of activities related to trans- portation for the disabled. Existing special transportation services and improvements to regular fixed route transportation facilities for the handicapped are described as they exist in Ontario, Canada, the U.S. and Western Europe. Following a description of existing services here and elsewhere, we outline existing policies and expenditures by the provincial government in Ontario, and describe existing policies of the federal government, other provinces in Canada, the U.S., and selected European governments. Some conclusions are drawn as to what policies appear to make sense from a comparative perspective. EXISTING SERVICES To document existing services in Ontario and elsewhere, a number of research steps were taken, as follows: - in seven Ontario cities, six of which were surveyed by the study team, detailed information was obtained about each speeial service that existed for the physically handicapped - a special survey was conducted in Metro Toronto of charitable organizations to determine their disabled transportation expenditures - in 15 other Ontario municipalities, information was obtained through telephone calls to local social service agencies - interviews were conducted by telephone in nine major cities across the country, to obtain des- criptions of operational characteristics of special transit services in those cities IItI-1 III-2 - letters requesting information on handicapped transportation policies and special driver licences were sent to provincial transportation agencies in Canada, and letters requesting policies and practices of provincial social departments were sent to the relevant provincial agencies - the London and Stockholm offices of Peat, Marwick and Partners undertook investigation of policies and services in these European countries, while letters requesting similar information were sent to other western European countries - a visit was made to Washington, D.C., to interview federal officials at the Urban Mass Transit Agency and local officials involved in subway planning - other telephone and personal interviews and corres- pondence, and information exchanges with a federally- sponsored study on transportation for the disabled. These research efforts provided a comprehensive picture of existing services, however, more extensive field investigation and dis- cussion with local officials would be appropriate during the implementation of specific programs. Services in Ontario As explained above, information was assembled for a number of cities in Ontario, and was organized according to the following cate- gories: - voluntary organizations providing transportation services - government-sponsored services, whether at the local, provincial or federal level - commercial organizations, including taxi companies and special van operators petytuepy suou - *“SOT3T[ Toe} [eucT}eerDe1 03 squatjed jzodsue13 03 peddeo -Tpuey Ajjeotsdhyqd oz paustsap azotyea SeSNn UdTIeTIOSsy soUR[Nquy s,uYyor *|5S - Ajtep sdtaj-uosied 9g¢-0/Z Sut{ [e303 ‘ATTep sj[Npe pue useipTTys pese-[ooqos ‘siaTooyos-aid 103 suea g sey papreqey A[[e3UeW AOJZ uoTJeTOOSSY - “soesng peddtnbs-“{[Tet2eds om} ut A[tep sdt13q o¢ *xoidde 923u99 03 A[tep usap{tyo sqiodsueiq 313099 S,uezp{1y9 petddyzag - *AUtep sdti2-uoszed y] ‘sateyotooym -uouU pue SITeEYyITeeY4A Ssqees Ssnq [ saeYy 313099 saydoag peddeotpuey AT [eoTsAug - Aytep sdq213 -uosied g ‘uazp[tyo yaodsueriq 03 txeQ pue ueA [ sey eiqUa9 ueIpTtTyD petddqtag - A[tep sdtij-uosied » ‘squepts -31 Ioy ueA pesn aHoY ,suaeZTITD lopUes - STITYSA DAO GIA SUOTJeZTUeSIO *s[Toouos pue sdoysyi0A 03 35e1QU09 Jepun pepzeje1 Ay Tequew 10; sdt13 ATtep OZ 3uyHyeM Txe] ,suereje, *sSutjno dnoi3 asyj0 pue pee oy3 IojJ semoy seAres AT [eUOTSeDI0 YOTYyA ‘sizeyoTeeya i103 peddrnbe snq auo sey SeUTT YyoROD 33TY4M *AUFep sdtiq 09 *390e1QuU09 iaepun AjTyiewtad ueap{tyo ‘yd SutAiie> ueA [ pue snq [ saey peddestpuey au} iozy sng uoqzs3uty pieoqg [ooyos Aq Ajtep sdt1q 7Z 10} pasn stxey suoT}ezqTuesig [eToicmmoy “AT TEp sdy13 Q¢€ pue uea auo soptaoid juei3 gI'J iepun soqta1es snqtuyu A[tep sdtijz anoy ‘y10M pyeTy - UT SJUSTTS 10J STXBQ € BSN SYA JOoyos worzy pue OF eTOTYeA pezetedo-juemu12A03 Uz aTNpeyos ie[NZe1 e UT eACW UsAIp[ Tyo jeep Aj}ep sdya3 -uosied g ynoqe ‘sasodind 3uy -UTe13 10J Dye sqJuUSeTI[O usyA sdt1iQ - ioy sked uotjepunoy uolt{eITITqQeyey “Ai yep sdyz13 0Z SAL [BuOFseID0 UsApT FYyoTOOYyos Sjiodsuel3 sqed Txe]l uoqssuTy squepyTse1 41tey3 103 sdtaq A[yep 3utyeu - yoee UPA [ 2ABY SeTOH pesy PIO 0A3 “AT yeea sdt33 uosied-7g -s3uT3no 103 snq 231eT uo 9SN sowoH ,SUeZTATQ 1ofzUes om] sdj13 Aj[}yep squet{o yaod -SUPI} SaDTAIEeS [eyTI0S Arg Zepunyy Tooyos wWolz pue oF UeIp{Tyo jo Atyep sdt13-uosied og ynoqge e¥yeu pieog [ooysS ejexredes pue - | UoFIeonpy Jo preog 2ITAASTC peeysyxey S9ITAIYg psyiosuods-juUsMUIsAOD *SOTUTTS 02 UOTIeQIOdsuUrIQ IOzZ BuyaTip AiezUNTOA [eUOTSedz0 aaey Ajayoo0s aeasueg uetpeueg pue gINOD S peddeostpuey AjjTeotshyd roy BuyatTIp Arequnjoa [euotseoz0 aaey squeatTy ‘A104 - ‘usmsuyy se yons sdnoi3 Aiejuntoa *9OTALIS vaIjy apyzaoid oj ueA 9UO YTA UuoTIe1edo ojUy sued SuTpunjy snoyiea 1epun FyAVHS sudz} yo - loyues 103 A[[euoysesz0 pasn snq auo sey qn{9 3aspurjadg pireapy 3utog quewjee13 103 sdt23 Ajtep Buryew ood BZutayzap 19e3un - -[OA aaey AQaTIOS I90uURD UeTpeUeD SI8ATIp 1z9eq,UNTOA [eUOCTseD -90 saey AQaTI0S I990UeD) UeTpeUED - pue [}ounoD Zuyuue,g [epoI0s “A[yep sdyt1q -uosied g{ *xoidde peddestpuey AT -Teotshyd sqiodsueiq neasang i1saquN{OA sesodind [eu -| -P291981 10x ATyQUOW sdt213-uoOsied 7] etdoed j10dsuei13 eour[nquy s,uyof “3S - quemjeei} 103 sieatip AITEYDT Saya pejepoumoose sey 212U3) IND pue jJUusmQeeay, 1399ue9 s3ut3Zno 103 sasnqg - AJID 896N SamoH ,SUaZTATD toques SHILIO OLWVLINO GALOTIAS NI GAIAVSIG FHL YOd SADIAWAS NOLLVLIYOdSNVUL AO LYVHD AYVHHOS penuyz juod) [-Iil LIGIHXa DOF ezpUesIQ PITAIS (000‘SE) SuyUMmT (000‘8¢) etures (0006s) uojs2utTy (C90 ZIT) Aeg iepunyy *SueA dUT[OUODG OA} UT Atep squet{[2 sqiodsueiz sefaqsnpul Ouy sapTousZioma A0J A[uo pasn uosem uot}eIs suo sey GINO s}[Npe pue usip{TTys peprejzer ATTeq -usm Buf _iodsuriz S9TITYPA BATF eAeYy aoueptseay pue [oOOYIS-e1g poomysany9 *SAITBYOTIIYA VT puey 03 peddtnbe Aj{{Tetoeds vie soue[nque auo pue sesnq [ooyos om] ‘sesnqyuTM OA, ‘*Sesnq [OoYIS ET pue sodUe[Nque Z ‘sasnqyTuyTm ¢[ ‘SUPA €[ ‘epnyToOUT YoTYyA Sa [ITYeA UMO AfeyZ UMO SuOFReZFUeZIO KTS sooqndue ueT[TATO pue ieA pue sseAo[dms doysyiom perteqzeys ‘AT Iepte ‘usapttyo yo Aep ted sdri3 o0¢- S/Z BUT yew ‘uo8ea uotTjeqs |auo ‘sasnq aATZ ‘sueA sUTU soveqnday 124 pue ‘aiqueg Aeq yseadheg ‘ueip, Tyo petddta9 10x Aqaqtoos ‘doysyz0m perzsqzeys yooigiog ‘[eqtdsoy s,ueip{Tty) AetaiooTg PTOTYaA UMD ITA SuOTIeZzTUesIO *sain3TJ uotje{ndod 4,9 [eToOTZJo ueyR 12eyQe1 ‘shaAans ano Aq peisaod voir ITyde1iZ0a3 i10z sain3TJ [/6] uo peseq aie suofje[ndog x “AU Tep peddeotpuey At{eszsdhyd rz0z sdt13 O€ ‘ATeyDTeeyA suo ZuUTJepomMOIDe siesd IfeysTeaqA ¢ Sey “PIT qed 2949940 *SUBA Jetoeds ¢-z 4noqe YITA VOTAIIS UPA yeyoremmos sajeiedo sout[sng 0 9 W AT rep sdf13 Q00‘9 i103 3Fxe} pue suosea uo}t}eI3s sosn pue ‘septi [ooyos peddeo -Tpuey JO ¥INq sey sa9dTAIsS Txe] O19, kep ied sdtaq OO0V-OSE 3noge oyew pue 8}2e12U09 pieog [OOYIS [[eEUS sAeY {saTITYeA 6-g ANoqe YyITA sotTuedmoDd uPA [etTo1smmod Suy~Aoc13 ov} aie snqnquy pue sadTAIVS SuOLVaddO LNAWNYaAOD squeqtzed | sied irae8uessed {xe} || uoyzjepunoy yoiessey (€Z61) 17°86S‘TS aeig azaoue) qe[nZe1 ut sy ‘szaaqunjoa || pue Juemzeer] 129ueD | SIVaIUNTOA | ve1q ATiA9plga snq 4319 | a3poly ITFH uooeeg usap[tyo | ueip[tug peprzeqey 10z PItyo 1ed| peddeotpuey | sied i1a3uessed aiqueyj JuowdoTeseq (€Z61) S0°270°6$ Aep/Sl°ts AT Tew ie[ndel ut sy FxeL | STJ5TID “CM qN19 O¥AD qn{D suoTT neesing spesu Aep sie. iasuassed sizaqunto, AQT9 - - |-03-Aep a0TAreS aeig putrid ie[nde1 uy sy | sied 1ee9qUNTOA Teel Nias) "ow 13d SsuTueAa sour Tnquy 1 ‘atd peddeotpuey BayzeyoTeeum 4 10 ByonI, Joued pte | s,uyor °3S reek /Qvz7$ | -0ed 9 - I a Aypeotshug | € :yonzq yoeg | ASAT} STTqow Z f PouRTNqmy s,uYyOL “4S uquow/o¢$ *xoidde qe8pnq nesang peddeotpuey | sivo as3uessed ; SIVIIUNTOA TaazuNToO, jo x Ot [leo uo aelgq Aj TeotsAud ie[n3ei ut sy Sied 139azUNTOA F nesing 13sequUNTOA *SNOILVZINVOUO ADTAWAS spunj JO ufssi0 |pelqes}q jo uoyyeqiodsuezy, squomeszuelIy adTAIeS | ies 07 3609 aT aquet[o A3yoedey ZuzQee5 S2{ITYIA JO I3equny uoy ezypuesIO uo sainz}ypuedxg [eIoOL i AV@ YAGNNBL €-I1ll FIaVL p=pieqey AT [equUeW AOJ u0TI -BTIOSsSy pes'loyeT TaaTIp + 1Pad/QQSS Aeg zepunyy], Jo AID | zeATIp + AeVek/cCEzZ‘I$ uea zed 1294/0005 L$ reek /000'4$ = TPIOL e3tTdsoy jJunowjseM uot jeonpy jO paeog pesyoyey Aeq ispunuy Jo AWt9 1894 /006$ uotjeonpy jo ArqsfutW *Aoig (€L61) LEL‘oz$ Bpung JO UPSTIO | PeTqestd JO voPyeqrodsuPiyl uo seinjjpuedSHOTAYAS TWIOXaWNOD S3dFAIVS [eTIOS Aeq lopunyy jo AqtO uoF.eonp” JO pieog pereyeyr] UO} IezZpUesIO qoe1qU09 pieog [oouss puofaq 1ea4/90059$ senusAal snq snjtd suotjeuog aaoge sy reek /00057$ so01inos ajzeatid 9 QUSU -UI3A05 OTIeIUO 1e2h /000‘'ZS aaoge sy Azequn{oa AT}9T135 P2Tqestq jo uoz3ejIo0dsueIzy, uo sainjztpuedxg [eqoL Spang JO UpSzIO qoer1rQUOD pieog [ooyas iepun sdTAres -ATPUT jJAe[NBaer - s0ueA -pe ut skep Z ATyep yoo Ajyep yoo aaoqe sy aoueape ut shep Zz yseatT 2e [TBD SUsMesUBIIy 2dTA1aS usIpTtyo -[00y498s 1OFZ a1eJ ou ‘siosn TenpTAyz put AOJ sntpe1r yToouos woijy pue 0} ueiIp{tTyo peddeotpuey A[yTeors -sXKyd Aqutew aaoqge sy Ayuo qsaionesepty JO sjueptsay aaoqge sy amo DUT IIAOT jo suokuy 1asp 02 7809 aT eqwet{) NOLSONIM 9-111 FAVL SITE YITIIYA ZT SITPYITIA4A Q aaoge sy uo3eA uoT}eWsS Ie[nsey aaoge sy , aed iasuessed ae[nsay snq [ ‘ueA [| C aaoge sy S27 qowo 7 ne Arequn[toa [euoTsess09 S2TIFYPA JO 19qG=EnN peddestpuey eyu7 10oFJ sng uoqAssuyy *SYOLVaddO TVIOYFWNHOD s1o0ueW VsIUIpPTAOCIg (amoH e3y PTO) qsexronNesptTy *SUOLVEEdO ENSNNNAAND AJ2EDOS 12sue9 uetpeue9 [}ounoD sutuuetd TeyTI0S }-SNOLLVZINVOUO ADIAYaS *sTsouzetp 40} uopuoy 0} uotTjeII10ds -uelj [eyoeds Sufppesu c¢ uopuoy 03 uo0yzjeII10d -suel} 105 14/Q/0T$ snq AIT) %OI-S a3ieyo ON *kdezey3 1ojy [eqatdsoy 02 smoY woIZ STeNpTATpuy AT [euozsess9 O00E$ ATAves ATHOTNb AI2AO SUIN} perOoTeseod 0sz$ :39iInjTpuedxs ATYyJUOW SaTITYSA iesuessed 7OH eaqeatid 7%¢7 Fx82 ZSC DOFIEIFT EAE YOU TeuofAeso0, pure soutqd jo yore mei30id aired pUOY UF peA| jusMIeeIQ 10 -[OAUF JOU |stTsouseTp 10; *Teaqtdsoy y3TA pre io aoue}] [eITdsoy 03 uoF3eI[Nsuo0d uT | -Ansut [e3 08 02 pase 10390p io pe’y | -uewetddns | 103 samoy 10 loJ swoH IO PAeY JOU Op} swoYy Butsinu auoy Zuzsainu Ag | Aoya JT C$] JO squeptsey *suoTt3 “yd jo dnoa3 -euop dno1i3 pue iequsau qnto e poqdasse Al [TeuotTs aJeATIg *3urstea niy} souReApe | suotJeuog |] -vd00 *suesz PunzZ qnTQ exdTAIesS UF BTIFYeA Yoog | e81eyd ON | -73T9 aAoTuas Spang JO UFSFI0 =| PeTqestq Jo voy JeQiodsue1y uo sainj}pusedxy [e,0y sSjusMesuelIy soTArIIs 19sSf, 02 3809 eTs vez) VINUVS G-IIl FIdVL Sc Worden Zuy{eas SaT2TyeA 50 Tequny SSO Ndi *“qeysy 90A aodFALVg asoue[Nquy *SYOLVEAdO INGWNYAAOD qQTD 3sFwy3do piaeapy 4uytodg *SNOILVZINVOYO JOIAYAS nos ezyuesio uot eonpy yo 413STUTH *a3ieyo ou je osn S}T soqjeUOp I39UMO ay. AT TeBUCTseII0 SqN[D BOTAIeS pue ‘setTouesy ‘sawoH Sutsinn ‘pesy ay} 103 sowoy spung jo Uyszi0 °31I sqsenbez 9suou *‘pasinqutei eq ued Sl9eqUNTOA YysnoyITV zeak rad ggz‘ts ao dt1q/uosied/¢$ epuies uy} Aep Jey A0Z CES PeTqes}ad JO voTyeIIodsue1zy uo seainzTpuedxy [es Io] (€Z, ¥ uaaAt1 set ofy's Zz 19343 -B2M zood ut "Ow /G p aoTyzjo 1 Aqatoos niyz ) agueiie {food SATIP AJIezUNTOA (eptt ted utejqo 1O [OOYDSs 07 pelTeeqa eq ued sjuepnjs sep amos ud)pesitsep usYyhM FxXe 10;J auoyd sjquapnys aoueApe UT Yoog SjUSMaSUBIIy 2dTAIeS eqtdsoy 9 2d ueptsei usa" -39q squat a asieyo ON -ed az90ue) adzeyd ON sjuepnys Z (#xeL) "usd pue suez -T3}9 aroques siteyo asieyod ON jo sdnoiy j-12204uM g pue gz Iasp 03 3809 kqyoedej Zuyqeas 319309719 sig, = VINAUVS S-I1II dIaVvL SilaATIp TaaqUNOA CH £2z03eje9 quewursaoy S2]2F42A JO Iequny (a}un Aquno9 uojquey) A,az~o0S aaoue) uetTpeue) uotjeonpy jo pie0g Ajzunog uojzquey :-Ga1GVSId AHL 40 NOLLVLYOdSNVAL dod ONIAVd SNOLIVZINVOUO *p#] SautTT yorOD a3F4M *SHOIANES TYIOUARNOO UOFIeBPUeSIO aoueTeq :QN[D eFAITIS ““9-€ *UITBOH | Aep aToFyea aed jo “UuTW °“%ST-9 ) snotAesid porzed QI e3e 03 SITEYOTI9YA 4 aijque) quowjeer] suoTzeoONpy Jo “utW aeeA zed Qgog‘ozs Oc -3id a[npeyos a3Zieyo ON] UsAPTTYyO OTL] ¥Y szees dunf 8 ,ueIp[ fy petddzap Frey 103 Asuow Io sadtAIVs [eto0s ¥ aed a9aeYy OU Ajyunmmo0g Jo “utW Op oy juoied 2 yyTeeH FO *UuTH) aiqUs9 pue p[tyo aed yanox pue Azejes jjye3s pepiz0se1 JON Z ysnoiyj esueity | o32eyd ON [euotTsesI9] UMO ZATIP FFeIS u2eIpT Ty) 103 v1QUSe|9 aeak yooyos Sut ainp uTUaAe uopuoy puns [| ut [ooyos 31e8°eH jo ArqSTUTW uTUsAd Sut pieo0g (pe zeiado pue uoztzeonpy posn st snq Aep 0} sjuUep -Jquowur2sAo3) | uopuoy, ut jo A1qSstTutW [eTo1swmo0s ae[ndaey]-Tagqg [|e TApeyos ae[nZey a3ieyd ON| -nIsS Jeep OZ O£ 1 jyeog ey 103 [OOYIS Tqjuo" suos *s3ut -1ed g -j20u AT YyQUONW I0jZ Z pue wtas A 939M AVF qy3tu Aepylaq suos] -e[Teae aToTyaa 03 sqUeTR -iod 9g] punoie pesueiie -ed stTsois{[os SITSYOTISYA € uoTIeTI0Ssy Pepz0dse1 ON IOF Z sajep ButQeeay] | e381eyd ON aTdta [aN sjeeos dumf ¢ aoue[nquy uyor °3S *SHIOLHAA NAO HALIM SNOILVZINVOYO spung Jo uzszig [petqestd jo uoyIeA1odsue1y sqUsmeZueIIy BoOTAIeS | 128M 02 3809 31 a2U2eTIO Ayjoede) Zuyz ees S2{ITYA JO 1squnN ff uoyIezypuesIoO uo sainjtpusedc«g [eIOL =e VINUVS ¢-1lII AIdVL 4OZ :*uesy 12430 7G :*uod ezeATId '%OZ:SQNTD edFAIeS “ST ‘Tavs “LT -dit Oc -“punog *qeysd be =UObISTELES -eyay [BuOTIeIOA *sadTAIVS [eTI0S F “mm0) FO *UTW ZOT jeeddy peatun %0Z uotIepfoossy Y%OL :$9so9) Sutqeiedp (uoy3 -BIFTTQeyey *90A) S8dTAIVS [eTI0S “mmo FO “UTW ZS? SqNTD 99TAISS ZL :$43so9 [eqtdeg *szsoo 3uTWe -i1edo pue j[eqtdes t1e sXked yotua | uotjeonpy jo “utW 0} 29e1}2U09 Aaepug jeoddy peatun 407 ‘3°V Azasany Aeq 408 :$4so9 3uyzeredg - SqN[Q ddFAIES :s3so9 [eqzdeo spunj JO UfstiO aeak ized Qg0‘s SIs PeTqestd jo uozyeqiodsueszy uo sainjtpusdcy [eo] adueApe UT SY¥IoM Moy & VTOTYAA ,,400q,, Aew soto -ua3y ‘“a0ueApe ut skep maj Of B 99TFFO TTD *aToTyeaa aod gt uotjetoossy Aq Io} | Yow ele Y suTT *suos {JO pus 03 *suPi] aad #¢ dTTqnd syeq LOZ ¢ siasn JO %O¢ suos aod 4¢ I0OZ Z jeTnpsyos ielnsey suos aad 71 IoZ Z je[Npeyds rze[nZey saya Atyea *xoiddy squewssuelIy 9d7A13S *yIOA io s3utjo30u Teisue3s ‘Ad -uase ‘ssouts -nq [euosied \ ‘Zutddoys 2OFFIFJO|° 1901 ‘[eTOOS Py? Yys8no1ry3 |10z uot e310d pejydesoe 4sueij Zuypesou suoT}eu0g s[npe 9 aBieyd ON |UeIp{TYyo °H’d aiquag Aqtu njzoddo 3utsn a3i1eyu) ON SITNPY C9 squepnjs a3e aZ1eyod oN -[OOYoS CG siajpooyos a3ieyo ON -o1id 71 19s} 02 3s09 aT9309FT9 Se ee ae yp VINdVS G-Iil WIaVvl SITeBYSTIOYA 4 pue sjees domf 4 cl cl él Jyoede) suyzieas ueA I sueA ¢ sng | sueA + UueA IT saT2TYeA JO JequnN (1}ady A,1ie9 3uT31e3S) FaXVHS aaoge se ames aaoge se sues (yoea 10} sepou [efoods 3uytsn sweaz -oid ajeiedes ¢€ sary) peprezey AT [BUA AojZ uot IeTIOSSYy uoFJezyzuesIO uinjo91 sdta3 spunj Ces Jo ye, OF eNp Aj tung penuz UoIstp eq -wWOd 3yI | quowur2eAc) [ITA 22TAIVS STyI o UT ye Fouzaolg 71/8 1fady Jo sy $dt13 Z 3509 ON squetjzed yeuosieg ArequnjoA LIN puttg soyutTo Zo} squetzed [euosieg Azeq\unjto, 12sue9 usipT Fyo Teuosisag ArejunpoA LIN petddta9 [UssoOG pepizeje2 [euosisg 4 AzequNTOA LIN Aypequey spuny jo u}y3}z10 Pelqesta Jo uoyyeRiodsuer1y SjUsmeszueIIy e3TAles | Jesp 07 4509 aT 2IUetID uo soInjz}{puedxg [RIO] SNIWALL 9-I1l FIGVL qyoede) supzees uo3em uotze3s [| Teatdsoy oFajzetTYyoAsd urea | u19} See 10N >SYOLVUYsdO LNAWNYSAOD Sd [Tqouo ne ArequnjtoA “G*1-N°O sa[tqowojne | AQayzo0s AzezUNTOA iaoue) uetTpeueD SoTTqowojne | Azequn{to, | STUPATY se]T Tqowojne Azejun{oa | ususutTy i: SNOLLVZINVDYO JDLANIS 821IFY43A JO Iequny uot ezpUesIO quewuzaaocy Testepead-dIit QueuwutsA0y TepToupAoIg quowuzsa0y) otiejugQ Spung JO uysyi0 Aep aad go’ ls €L61 UF OOO‘SYTIS 4yquou Jad g/§ se y8ty se yquow ted Q¢s-o¢s PeTqestqd Jo uoy eqiodsuer1zy uo sainjytpuadcy [eq,oL BOTALVS UT-T[eO zoe 1QuU00 ' peatnbez potaad ayq 107 sjusme8ueIIe soyeul SYA sqUsMasueIIY IdFAIES peddeotpuey pepiejes AT Lequew quowssetd PTOTF-UT ZO sasinod aupye3 $queT TO) T3Isf 02 3509 aT eIUezID SNIWAIL O-lIT WIEVL peddeotpuey ay} IOjF VdTAIAS (sng-TUTH) eA tTxey AIOZOTA , SUBIIIAA *S4DTAWAS TVLOYANNOD € ynoge - sTxe]j SUA ‘daTaVSId FHL dO NOILVLYOdSNVEL OA ONTAVd NOLLVZINVOUO 831 IFYaA JO iequny LoFezyzuesI1O 1SS6°26S >: TVLOL Z61 ‘7272S I8Z‘ges 098‘¢8$ ER ojUu0IOL O1}29Q JO TPOuNoD Bsuyuueltd [eyzoos 0/9 s1zqQUeD AsezUNTOA sjuounutodde [eoT pew o3 BUTATAp 1903 uotzepToossy Arzojeatdssy pue stso[no1reqny -UNTOA 210s SlzvequNt{OA Aq yquow /sdt13 uinje2 OS 9iquag UOTIeIT[TQeyey ORUOIO], Ly7* Les 09S°%7$ yooyss metaduuns hq AT 422M SeTTW 0S-0€) uoTIeTIOSSy SjUeIeg meTAAUUNS oo€ ‘6S uot eyoossy epTyfa/eutds 00ss SUBTITATD petddtag 10x AQata0s PeTqesfqd eyy 104 uofzejzrodsueiry uo aingtpusedxg [ere Jol 83809) Sutatiq | suofzjze1edg pue seTotye, | (sueA [eyoroum0D “stxey) 139e4UNTOA uMO 1OF 83809 uoqzejsodsueazy 104g uot }ej10dsuelzyl qUSTID 02 Quowkeg pedeeotTpuey ATTeoTsAud ey BuTAASNS uoTIezypuesIO qusduUI2A0D-uoN (sized CT SNOILVZINVOYO LNANNYZAOS-NON Ad AIVd OLNOYOL OULAN WOT SAXYALICNAdXA NOLTLVIYOd SNVaL " 006° | 00S‘z$ doysyi0m Awiy uot eATes sotTajzsnpul uoFIeIFTTqeyed yornyg pe3tun (soTiqsnput uoTIeIFTTqeyod sepnpouT) uofzepunogy uot ejtTTqeyod (seysueig yYI0R YIAON pue ayootqoragd ‘oquoio],) ssoip ped sinoy AZzeqUNTOA Fo speirpuny AueW 000‘ 6T$ 717° 6$ ea — as ees Pelqestd ey. 10g ba SuyAyaq | suofjzeitedg pue saTITYyeA SUBA [B}OLemM0D ‘“STxeL) | uezpittyo petddzap 10g AqaTo0Sg ofTre UO pets[ed [erqe1e9 ey} 10F uoT,erlepey OF1e UO Ayatoos Aydoajshkq szepTnosny : epeueg jo Aqatoo0sg stsoreTos aTdTaNil peddeotpuey AT TeoTsAud aq BuTAIeg uoTRezyuesIO quoeuuz2A0D-u0oN uofzej1zodsue1zy uo TaaqUN[OA uMQ 1OF $3809 uozzejazodsurzy 10g sangtpuedxg [eo] uot jeqaiodsued QUSETID 03 Juoutheg SNOLLVZINVDYO LNAWNYSAOS-NON Ad CIVd OLNOYOL OULIWN YOI SAMNLIGNACXA NOTLVLYOdSNVUL foTil alava eoA aod sdti3 ZaaqUNTOA 000 ‘79 S[90!jM-UO-STeO:: wei3oid AVIaAUNTOA TTews e1iquaeg 73s00 Eee *sts ECSEGIS sdoysy10m perzeaTeysg yoorqgt09 se, Tu Z80°1I1T 205 €6S‘°S$ se3 ut €64°7S oot ‘es (sdoysyiom perez Teus Ss ,ueu0M) sdoysyion perzeqzteus Aqtunwuo0D (sdoysyi0m perezTeys sopnpout, (GINO) PUTTA PYF OJ aynjTAsul [euotjzey uetTpeuep (Teatdsoy e8poy 3sanypus 7} osegs uoTjeToossy oTZeTdearg ueTpeued weaigoid qaequnjoa auoy [Tews uoTjepunog s,uosuTyIeg uetpeued PpeTqestqd ey 104 uoTjeq1odsuezy uo aingypusdxg [eo $}50) SutTAyTaAg | SuUOT}Ie1edQ puke SdTITYSA ZIaRUNTOA UuMQ 1I0F 83SO0D uotjejiodsuerzy SUBA [BTO1omMI0D “STxe] uoTjejzodsueay, 104 qust[) 0} Juswuheg ) peddestpueyH ATTeoFsAud aU BuypAAasS uofjezTuesIO qUSsmUIaAOD-uUON ES SNOILVZINVDYO LNAWNYZAOD-NON Ad CIVd OLNOYOL OULAN WOA SAYNLICGNAdXA NOLLVLYOdSNVaL weaisoid Aaa qUNTOA Tres 878 °CCs | S8I°9ES 099‘ 61S weiaSoad AIaAUNTOA SUuON [Tews ee 698°71$ | 00c ‘ITS ~ patqestqd ey} 104 |{s3so0p Buyzazaq | suoyjezedo pue sazpotye, | (sueA Teforoumog “stxe]) uoqjzeq.Iodsueay uo AadzUNTOA uUMgO IOJ $3S09 uofzejaodsueay 107 eingtpusdxy y[e_oL uot zejizodsuedy, WUSeTIQ OF Quewdheg AjeToos et[tTydowe:]j vetpeueD Ajatoo; Butrvse,; uetTpeuvd ee a a eee uotjetoossy Asdoettdy uetpeueg A}ZeTIOS AsO.ULD UPTpeURD AZsT90Gg ITQeuMsvyY pue DTATA Iyer peuss Teqtdsoy s ,ueip[tyy metArootg” peddeotpuey AT Teotshug ou} BuUTAIeS uoTAezTue3s19 quewu1z3sA05-u0oN SNOLLVZINVOYO INAWNGAAOD-HON Ad GIVd OLNOYOL OULIN WOd SAMNLIGNAdXaA NOLLVLYOdSNVaL CL Tava IV - VEHICLES DESIGNED FOR THE DISABLED In this chapter, we describe the state-of-the-art in vehicles, particularly in Canada and to some extent in the United States, and then outline the individual vehicle types of special vans, minibuses, regular transit buses, and specially equipped self-driven vehicles. Also dis- cussed is the problem of access to subway and bus stations. OVERALL STATE-OF-THE-ART Wheelchairs as Vehicles The physically handicapped person's transportation problems begin with his own personal mobility. This has been enhanced over the years by medical and other developments to increase his personal mobility through the use of special aids. Included among special aids are wheelchairs. There are, at present, increasing efforts to design wheelchairs to provide the handi- capped relative freedom in shopping centres, public parks, and other outdoor spaces where the normal mode is by walking. | Such wheelchairs virtually become personal transportation vehicles, and the line between special aids and special vehicles for public transportation is becoming less clear. However, we exclude developments of the wheelchair in the 4 96 2 ee 1. For example, the ''Batric' powered chair, produced in Britain, runs on a standard 12-volt car battery. The Transportation Development Agency is also developing an improved, powered wheelchair. description of vehicles designed for the disabled, since they are not part of the public transportation system. Vans and Buses In terms of vehicles for transit systems, we refer primarily to the small "special" vans which have been adapted to accommodate wheelchairs, and mini (or "dial-a-bus'" type vehicle) or large buses which have been designed to accommodate wheelchairs or at least contain special provisions to increase the accessibility of the physically nels ree Exhibit IV-1 provides a summary of the main character- istics of vans and buses. More details are provided below. Although there have been improvements in recent years in all types of vehicles, few have been produced as standard models. With few exceptions, all are adapted to the needs of the disabled by modifying standard production models. For example, the special van is a standard vehicle made by major auto manufacturers and converted by special body shops to accommodate siecichetea by having the roof raised, the interior rearranged, and a ramp or lift added. Converting vans for wheelchair use is still in the development stage, with a small number of companies in Canada and many more in the 2. The progressive sizes of bus-type vehicles are as follows: van - 5 to 13 passengers, mini-bus - 15 to 25 passengers, small bus - 25 to 35 passengers, and large bus - 35 to 60 passengers. The sizes and defi- nitions are not strictly rigid, but it is felt useful to structure the discussion of vehicle types by acceptable transit terminology. sloujaeg pue yoTmIeW ‘Jee -(sozewy4se ZIFI@ pue WD uo peseq) OOO0‘OTS °F dn s}soo JT] [eoTUPYyOeM/or1}9eT9 ue BUTPTA -oid {snq/Q¢$ 2q P[Nom suoTJeoTFFpow AOUTW *s100p 1eptm pue daqs temo, ATIWSTTS sey snq SLY-WD Meu ‘fseatjoOefqo uoqTzFIed -wod snq-sueajy jo aed are ZYysTey deqjs 1eMOT pue ‘sioop AeptmM *szFTT [TeoFueyoouw/o1z99T4 *sqyTT yata peddtnbe sosnqg uo SAfeyoTee4yM 10j saoeds (q) pue ‘sjeos pajeustsep pue “suosyouejs ‘s[tei-qei3 eiqxe (2) e1e pesodoad qnq ‘euoN setiqsnpuyt 12eA4Tq wo OSs st 000‘Sz$ st aqjonb asaA-yey pe WzsAuo| SIJT[ [eOTUBYOOM/01399TF *szo3uessed BuTyTeM 1OZ YSer SSATeYyOTIOyA azoy sooeds ¢-4 optAoig yorog UTAL 22A-4Ou SOILLSIYSLOVYVHOD SNd AGNV NVA T-AI LIGIHXa 00S‘9$ 93 00G‘Z$ SUOTIBITITPOW 00S*S$ PTOTYPA *sjooi poster pue ITT [eopyuReYyIeu/o1zZ9eTe Ao OT[neapky io sduey *sia3uessed SUTYTeM pue AaTeYyo -[2904uM Jo vsn eptaoad io sjeos [[e eAousYy ueA J2eTOTASYD UBATXeW e3pod auT[OUODY pizoq $3sS09 eqewtxoiddy squsu -o3ueiie }Txe pue 3utpie0g sjucme3uPIIe81 AOTAs4UT uoMMOD IV-3 United States increasing their experience. In the design of mini-buses, there are now more models being produced that have features designed to accommodate wheelchairs. Aside from relatively long-range '"Trans-bus'"' design competition in the United States, there is little development activity by major bus manufacturers to make regular transit buses access- ible to wheelchairs. Station Accessibility Since transportation of the physically handicapped is often a door-to-door requirement, accessibility to buildings and sidewalks is very much a part of the overall intra-city mobility problem. However, to concentrate on public transportation problems, we are restricting comments on building accessibility to public transportation stations or stops. Discussion of subway and bus station accessibility problems has primarily revolved around vertical access to subway platforms. The most recently developed subway systems in North America - Washington and San Francisco - have incorporated elevators in the station design, to give physically handicapped people in wheelchairs access to station platforms. Other cities, such as Toronto, are placing emphasis on escalators in new station design and old station upgrading. Escalators are helpful to a large group of physically handicapped, while elevators would assist those who are helped by escalators as well as those in wheelchairs. Iv-4 Self-Driven Vehicles The final vehicle to be covered is the specially adapted auto- mobile, or van. These vehicles are designed largely for wheelchair-bound or amputee disabled people who cannot drive regular cars. Many garages in this country are equipped to provide hand controls and other adaptations to private automobiles for disabled drivers who need special equipment. Special equipment can be ordered from a few manufacturers in Canada and many in the U.S. Specially designed cars also require longer training times, but there is only one driver training school in the country established to instruct handicapped drivers. In Great Britain, there is widespread use of a special auto- mobile, called the '"Invucar" or ''Tricycle'', which was designed for use by the disabled drivers. At present, it is criticized for being de- ficient in its safety features, and is probably on the wane as a suitable alternative to the adaptation of regular passenger cars or vans. It appears that the trends in Great Britain are toward converted minis in- stead of the three-wheeled vehicles. In the remainder of this chapter we provide details on each type of vehicle. IV-5 SPECIAL VANS Special vans are small vehicles that have been specially adapted for the physically handicapped. They can either be vans that people in wheelchairs can board and drive themselves, or vans that are driven by others and used to transport physically handicapped people in wheelchairs. It is the latter type that we are considering at present, since it is this type of van which is proposed for new special transit services. A description of the normal procedures for preparing a special van is provided in Exhibit IV-2. Essentially, since the major van manu- facturers do not produce vans that are already specially equipped, there have developed in the U.S. and Canada many companies who sell special equipment and undertake the conversion of regular vans. Exhibits IV-5 to IV-7 at the end of the chapter show photos and manufacturers’ literature of special vans. The regular vans include the Ford Econoline, one of the most popular in Ontario, the Dodge Maxivan, often preferred because of its slightly larger size, and the Chevrolet van. In Europe, special vans are converted from the vans purchased from the major European manu- facturers, such as Peugeot, Mercedes, and Renault. The Dodge Maxivan appears to be gaining popularity because of the greater possibility of having, as well as spaces to anchor wheel- chairs, perimeter seating for handicapped who are not confined to EXHIBIT IV-2 SPECIAL VAN ADAPTATION PROCEDURES Purchase standard Ford Econoline, GM Chevyvan, Dodge Maxivan (18'"' longer than Ford): - none of the major automobile manufacturers produces vans specially adapted for handicapped. Convert standard van to accommodate wheelchairs: at least two companies in Ontario have experience in this field (Funkraft, in Cambridge, and Gold Line in London), one company in Alberta (Para Industries) and several companies in the U.S.( e.g. R.J. Chairlift, Fred Scott and Sons, Compass) some companies sell special lift or ramp equipment to be installed locally. . Conversion of regular vans includes installation and adjust- ments as follows: all or some regular seats are taken out for wheelchair spaces ramps, or manual, hydraulic, or electro/mechanical lifts are added, which can be semi- or fully automatic (i.e. the fully automatic can be operated by the driver without leaving the driver's seat) roofs are raised for driver ease in loading and securing passengers, and comfort of passengers optional features include wider loading passenger doors (for easier entry), three-level step with handrails and fold-up seats (for walking handicapped), wheelchair locks, extra heating, inside panelling, headrests, insulation, skid-free carpeting, etc. Peat, Marwick and Partners wheelchairs. In addition, the larger the van the more flexible it has in terms of the first passengers being able to exit without obliging the last passengers to disembark first. The extent to which it is desirable to add various features to specially adapted vans depends on the required standards. In terms of lifts, it is inadvisable to use manually-operated ramps in a transit service, since this could be quite a burden on the driver/operator. However, some form of semi-automatic (i.e. hydraulic) lift is sufficient, if the driver's responsibility includes assisting the wheelchair passen- ger in any case. Completely manual ramps are generally for individuals who want to economize on their own personal vans and who have someone to assist and drive for them. Fully automatic lifts with outside push- button controls are the other extreme, and useful for wheelchair handicapped drivers who do not want to depend on any outside assistance. The costs of the special vans are shown on Exhibit IV-3. Since each special van historically has been a custom-made job for an individual or an organiaation, the costs vary according to the features desired. As is indicated, the range in Ontario has been between $8,000 and $12,000 for a fully equipped special van. In terms of providing efficient transit service, many of the features of the higher priced converted van would probably be desirable. In this case, future capital budgeting plans should take into consideration the upper level of the special van costs. Iv-7 With increased demand, manufacturers will possibly consider producing a standard special van with lifts, though to our knowledge, there is no plan for this at present. The existing market in North America is only a few thousand units per year and is very fragmented in terms of the number conversion facilities. MINIBUSES Minibuses, i.e., those seating from 15 to 25 people, have been used over the years for a variety of transportation needs. Very few have been specially adapted for use by wheelchaired physically handicapped. With the advent of the dial-a-bus system, which normally uses minibuses as its principal vehicle, there has been increased interest in making them more accessible to the physically handicapped. The reason is that the dial-a-bus system has as its fundamental concept a door-to-door service, which is particularly suited to the needs of the more severely physically handicapped. The minibus vehicle which is adapted to take wheelchairs normally has four to five spaces for wheelchairs and the remainder for seats for non-wheelchaired passengers. The entire interior can be re- arranged to accommodate only wheelchair passengers, but manufacturers seem to offer a model which has only a few spaces designated for wheel chairs. Therefore, the use of the minibuses for the disabled has been perceived by manufacturers primarily for service to non-handicapped or EXHIBIT IV-3 SPECIAL VAN COSTS VEHICLE: Ford Econoline: $5,400 Dodge Maxivan: 5,600 CONVERSIONS: Lifts? Manual: $ 300 - $500 Hydraulic: 800 - 1,200 Electro/mechanical: 1,200 - 2,500 Safety and Other Options, e.g.: - roof vent (12 volt fan) S745 - panelling package including installation 200 - carpet 155 - additional lift inside 15 - rear bent seat (3/4 seat) 150 - 3-bucket seats (swivel can be removed) 150 - wheelchair clamps (4) 200 - wheelchair lockdowns 30 - manual ramp 315 - air-conditioner (dash mounted) 495 - spare tire mounted on back 30 $1,785 Total cost depends on extent of conversion; two extremes would include: i Top line conversions with fully automatic lifts can cost in Canada $11,000 to $12,000. Quotation from lowest bidder for TTC pilot project was $12,000 for converting Dodge Maxivan. 2a With minimum equipment, including ramps not lifts, the price would be about $8,000 in Canada. In the U.S. one manufacturer sells converted vehicles for as low as $4,300. 1. Based on U.S. as well as Canadian quotations. Peat, Marwick and Partners ambulatory handicapped passengers, with the capability of also handling the occasional wheelchair passenger. The dual seating also provides by far the most flexible vehicle. As the figures above show, to convert a van for wheelchair passengers costs 50% to 100% more than the purchase price of the van it- self. To convert a minibus costs approximately 10% to 25% more than the purchase price of the unconverted bus. The reasons for this include the following: - the minibus does not have to have its roof raised - the minibus normally has safety standards and heating/air-conditioning equipment built into it - the lift required for a minibus is not more ex- peneive than that which has to be installed in the van. In Canada, the two manufacturers identified who have at least design experience in this area are Ginklevan Ltd. and the Rek Vee Industries. The latter company has a prototype out on its vehicle but at present, there are no plans for production. In the United States, the Twin Coach of Highway Products Inc., appears to be more advanced. Some photos and floor plans of these minibuses are shown on Exhibits IV-8 to IV-1l at the end of the chapter, and their main features are: Lis The Ginklevan standard model has a low step, 6" or 7"" from the curb, and wide doors. Without adaptation this standard model makes access easier for the am- bulatory physically handicapped. The company is in “he process of adapting the Ginklevan for wheelchair passengers based on an order from certain Ontario hospitals in the Hamilton area. Iv-8 IV-9 Ze The Rek Vee vehicle has been modified for wheelchair passengers by Funkraft under licence by the Ontario Transportation Development Corporation. The modified features include five wheelchair spaces in the front of the vehicle (with fold-up seats for use when there are no wheelchair passengers) to go along with ten seated people, and a widened front door which pro- vides space for the second step to fold up and the bottom step to lower to the ground, then be lifted up again. The lift is controlled by the driver with a proposed boarding time of ore minute. 36 The Twin Coach vehicle has roughly the same interior and lift characteristics as the Rek Vee. The cost of the Rek Vee is tentatively quoted as $25,000, or $2,500 more than the standard Rek Vee minibus that does not have the capability of accommodating wheelchairs. It should be available in the latter part of 1974. The costs of the adapted Ginklevan and Twin Coach vehicles is also approximately $30,000, although the date of availability is uncertain at this time. Minibuses that accommodate wheelchairs have not yet been used in service in Canada. Nor has one or more been incorporated into a fleet. In the U.S., adapted minibuses are being used in some demonstra- tion projects, either as part of a dial-a-bus fleet (e.g. Haddonfield, N.J.) or as the standard vehicle used in the dial-a-bus fleet (e.g. St. Petersburg, Fla.). Aside from special institutions which have acquired these vehicles, the other main use would be as part of a fleet serving the walking and wheelchair handicapped. Such a vehicle fleet might be a mixture of special vans and minibuses with the composition of each depending on the needs of the population served. REGULAR TRANSIT BUSES The regular, large buses used in tramsit service are deficient in a number of ways in terms of being accessible to the physically handicapped. First, there is no provision in the regular bus for accom- modating wheelchairs. Second, the first step is 17"' from the ground, which is a formidable barrier to some physically handicapped. Third, the interiors have no special seating arrangements such as stanchions that can be grabbed easily by both hands, for the unsteady walking handicapped. The minimum modifications to a bus would be the addition of grab-bars on both sides of the door at the entrance of the bus, extra stanchions in certain seats in the bus to enable a handicapped person to grab one with each hand to raise or lower himself, and the designation of seats to be reserved for the physically handicapped. As an example of such changes in the regular bus, the equip- ment manager of OC Transpo in Ottawa has proposed that:° Sesser a Transportation for the Handicapped Ottawa-Carleton; H. Chaput Equipment Manager OC Transpo Iv-10 Iv-i1l - two stanchions, one in either side of the bus in the first three-seater, be moved one seat, so that the three-seater becomes in effect a two- and one-seater - grab handles be added to the inside of doors, step well panel, and a horizontal one beside the fare box - signs be posted reserving seats for the physically handicapped. A preliminary estimate of the cost of these adjustments is $50.00 per bus. A preliminary schematic diagram of the proposed arrange- ment is shown on Exhibit IV-4. The problem of a lower step is virtually unsurmountable in the judgment of equipment manufacturers. The step height is apparently determined by the basic design of the bus and is constrained by the height of the bus floor above ground level. One possibility reviewed by OC Transpo was to re-design the step well to add an extra step and thus lower the bottom step. However, it is considered by those in the transit industry that an extra step would increase the stairwell area and reduce the floor area adjacent to the fare box. The result would make it more dangerous to the passenger, who would have a smaller space to stand in paying his fare. Another technical problem with the extra step arrangement is the insufficient room under the floor to accommodate structural members and the axle sus- pension system. EXHIBIT iV-4 PROPOSED CHANGES FOR FRONT OF TYPICAL BUS OC TRANSPO APRIL 23, 1974 DOOR LEAF STEPS DRIVER'S ere wie PLATFORM HANDWEse (2) (a) (3) VERTICAL STANCHIONS END BRACKET @ VERTICAL STANCHIONS (1) MOVE STANCHION (2) ADD GRAB HANDLES TO INSIDE OF DOORS @& STEP-WELL PANEL (3) POST SIGNS RE: i.e. "RESERVED SEATS FOR THE HANDICAPPED“ (4) HORIZONTAL GRAB BAR EV=12 A "flip-out" step is used on streetcars, but they run on fixed rails along the centre of the street. In the view of transit officials, a bus equipped with a flip-out step would be hazardous to incoming passengers, since buses are not on a fixed rail system. The main practical problem with this kind of step is that it is not now available for buses, and designing one would be very expensive. There are some larger buses which have been specially adapted to accommodate wheelchair passengers. While there does not appear to be conversion facilities in Canada, there is at least one in the U.S., Blitz Body in Chicago, an outside custom body shop builder. A regular bus is re-worked to provide for the installation of a special electro/ mechanical lift at the front door of the bus (see Exhibit IV-12 for a photo of a converted bus). The price per conversion of this type is quoted as $10,000 per vehicle. New Bus Designs The new General Motors bus is to be introduced in late 1976 - the RTS model. It will have a kneeling feature that will lower the front step by approximately 4%" to 5"' from the 14" high step that exists now. The rear exit door will be somewhat wider than at present as well. This bus has been designed for better performance and higher comfort to regular passengers, and not specifically for improving accessibility for the physically handicapped. General Motors has not engineered a hydraulic (or electro/mechanical lift), nor does it plan to offer it as a GMC manufactured option when the RTS is introduced. Modifications of that type would, as at present, be handled by local suppliers. The U.S. Department of Transportation has been sponsoring a competitive program to develop a new 40-foot bus, named "Trans-bus". Three manufacturers are building their versions of trans-bus under an Urban Mass Transportation Administration program, with the basic object- ive of improving service for all people. One aspect of this program is to provide better access to the physically handicapped, including those in wheelchairs. Photos and descriptions of the special features for increasing the access are presented in Exhibits IV-13 and IV-14 for each of the manufacturers. While this competition is important to the long-run development of large transit vehicles that can accommodate wheelchaired physically handicapped, the GM-RTS is much closer to production, and is the more likely bus to be used by transit authorities for the next several years. SELF-DRIVE VEHICLES A number of physically handicapped people are capable of driving cars or vans with hand controls, though they may not be able to use the regular public transportation system. The three basic types of self-drive vehicles are as follows: Ss British "Invucar" - a three-wheeled small car with one seat for the handicapped driver. Iv-13 1V-14 Ze Automobile adapted for hand controls - most auto- mobiles can be altered so that some physically handicapped persons can drive, even though they may not have use of their legs. oe Vans adapted for hand controls - vans can also be specially adapted with lifts to enable disabled drivers to drive without leaving their wheelchairs. Invucar As stated in Chapter III, there are approximately 20,000 British tricycles, officially termed as the "“invucar". They are much criticized at present, and complaints about them include: - serious instability in high winds - extremely vulnerable in heavy traffic - difficulty of control on poor roads or bad weather - high internal noise - lack of a hazard warning light - seat which often slides sideways without warning - positioning of the gas tank just forward of the handicapped person's knees - inflammability of the fibre glass cabin. A further disadvantage of the "invucar" is that only one person can ride in it at one time. This means that the spouse, for example, of a handicapped person must take public transit or another vehicle rather than accompany the handicapped person. The reasons for the widespread use of the "“invucar" is due to the policy of providing these vehicles free, while only loans are granted to handicapped people for purchasing and converting Morris "minis", Adapted Automobiles and Vans Hand controls can be added to most popular makes of automobiles and can be installed by any competent mechanic. A minimum price of $100.00 for standard hand controls has been quoted, although extras to build up seats and other features can increase the cost. Hand controls are special equipment with few manufacturers in Canada. One that is referred to by the Cosmo Driving School is K. Labrone in Vancouver. There are also two small scale manufacturers in Southern Ontario. In the United States there are many companies selling special hand controls, as well as vans that have already been converted to use for wheelchair drivers. For example, one such car is the ''Roycemobile" which has a factory and nationwide (U.S.) distribution network. In the U.S. Ford Motor Company has been approaching a different problem - that of getting into a car from a wheelchair and then stowing the wheelchair. This company (see Exhibit IV-15) is working on modifying wheelchairs and station wagons to solve this problem. There is only one known training school in Canada for handi- capped drivers, the Chernier Cosmo Driving School in Port Credit (see Exhibits IV-16 to IV-18). According to their experience it may take up IV-15 LV-16 to 75 hours to train a handicapped person. Apparently, too, this com- pany finds that the special equipment needed in automobiles is different for each person. One problem in training is the transportation of the trainee to the driving school; often, instructors have to go to the home of the trainee (at a higher cost). The driving school also is trying to obtain funds to purchase an adapted van. The converted automobile can cost as low as the lowest price model car plus $100 for hand controls, while the converted van starts at $4,300 for the 'Roycemobile" (U.S. prices) and up to $10,000 in Canada. However, while the converted automobile is cheaper, some people will only achieve mobility if they can have access to a special van that they can get into themselves. Since the needs of physically handicapped people differ - some of them have to stay in their wheelchairs - the particular vehicles or adjustments cannot be stipulated in advance. Any prospective program to subsidize the purchase and conversion of self-drive vehicles for the handicapped should take this factor into consideration. The use of private automobiles by handicapped persons also raises the question of parking spaces designated for the handicapped. If disabled people are to achieve greater mobility through the use of self-driven automobiles, this increased mobility can be frustrated by the problem of not being able to park close to the destination of the trip. Therefore, although not part of the equipment problem, parking is very much related to the use of self-driven vehicles. IV-17 STATION ACCESSIBILITY There are station "barriers" to the accessibility of physically handicapped people to buses due to the lack of seats and shelters at bus stops. Accessibility can be improved simply by adding seating and shelter facilities to more bus stops. The major question concerning accessibility to bus and subway stations is the problem of going from street level to platform level of subway stations. The problem with the subway accessibility is basic- ally the stairs that have to be climbed by all passengers. The addition of escalators to the TTC subway and other foreign cities' subway systems for the convenience of the general public is of course beneficial to the physically handicapped as well. However, even escalators present a barrier to the severely disabled, especially to those people in wheel- chairs. To make subway platforms accessible to these people requires some kind of inclinator or elevator. Inclinators An inclinator is a device that would be attached to an esca- lator or stairwell that can transport physically handicapped people in wheelchairs to the subway platform. An inclinator would be attached to the existing escalator or stairwell and be operated only when needed (possibly only in off-peak hours). The problem with an inclinator is that no prototype exists at present. In the design of the Washington Metro system representa- tives of the elevator industry were approached and asked to develop an IV-18 inclinator that could be adapted to their system. It appears that the companies approached were not interested unless substantial public money were to be provided for basic research and development of the inclinator. Therefore, there remains the costly problem of developing a suitable inclinator. Elevators The alternative means of providing greater vertical access to and from subway platforms is through the use of elevators. Elevators were installed in the BART and are being installed the Washington Metro systems, especially for the use of the physically handicapped. In BART, wT eeaincs were not included in the original design of the stations and had to be added after the designs commenced, or after construction had been completed. Of the 34 stations in the systen, five had been about half completed, ten approximately 70% completed, six had been constructed completely before elevators were added; another six had not yet been designed, and apparently a decision is pending on another seven stations. The total cost for these elevators originally estimated at $7 million is now $10 million. In the Washington Metro, the budget for the elevator component of the subway system is $65 million. With a total of 98 stations in the Washington Metro, the average cost for providing elevators is over $500,000 per station. Since the total cost of the Washington Metro is estimated to be $3 billion, that portion which is attributed to providing accessibility for the physically handicapped is about 2% of the total capital costs. The experience in San Francisco and Washington shows that the costs of providing elevators at stations vary considerably. It depends on whether elevators are originally designed for the station and what physical barriers are presented by the station location. For example, in San Francisco above-ground stations made low-cost elevators more feasible. The addition of elevator access to the Toronto subway system would obviously be a very complex engineering undertaking. By the year 2000, the number of TIC subway stations is expected to rise to 100 from the present 49. Costs would be different for every station, and parti- cularly onerous for downtown ones; costs would probably be greater than those experienced by BART and Washington Metro, since a large number of completed stations in the Toronto system would have to undergo substantial renovation. Since at present, the policy for the TTC is not to include elevators in new subway stations, the costs of later providing elevators will increase as new subway stations are Conaevuccedte SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, we have shown that there are vehicles that can accommodate the severely handicapped. Lifts or ramps that enable handicapped people's wheelchairs to board a vehicle exist for self-driven vehicles, special vans, minibuses, and large buses. However, particularly ne rt a Sor en Sean Le ee Re Ce de Ee 4. The TIC is currently examining the costs and elevator access policies for the Metro Toronto subway system. IV-19 LV-20 in the case of a special van, a stock production line vehicle has to undergo fairly expensive modifications to make it suitable for the wheelchair-bound disabled. Thus, vehicles are available for the physically handicapped (though not an inclinator for subways), but they will remain fairly expensive until scale production and greater sophistication in manu- facturing technology bring the unit prices more in line with standard vehicles. There pe a few inexpensive modifications that can be made to existing public transit vehicles, but the improvements are marginal in terms of really reducing the barriers to the walking disabled. Equip- ment managers are relatively negative on the prospects of lowering the first step of a regular bus, or any other major modification. It is difficult to conclude that such modifications have been thoroughly researched from an engineering standpoint, and that all options have been found wanting. Some improvements will be made in the regular production model of the GM-RTS bus, but significant improvements will not occur until new models, such as those being designed in the Trans-bus program, are on the production line. <5 EXHIBIT IV ‘Bulyeoo piys-uou sey J9}JUa9 dwey ‘speo] AAeay saye} 1Ngq ‘Buljp -uey Ases JO} YBnNoue jybIq ‘snq apisui Ajjoedwoo sei0}s dwey wnuiwnyy buipjo4 WHOS Id =MOLWARTa 80 efvy dacios 40 NOILISOd ONIAMAYD "$}OB} JO} WS ‘ease JNOA ul AJOJS SSBDONS NVAILHYOS & S.asoUL "S}HIUN OG JO} PO}Oe41JUOD SBY BRJJaAA [BIDOS OBedIYyD cae as azeto4 ‘UBIPIIUD Pepsejes AjjeluSW pue AjjeoisAyd jodsue} 0} 176} BuuNnp SNVAILHOS 8yl Peseyoind auoje uolepsejey jo pueog O1UO SUL ‘$10}BJOdO JUSBIUND JO JUBWOSIOPUS OI}seISNUjUS BU) JBeay pyjnoys NOA HuldulAuod NVAILHO Pesu NOA 4} "S|BIUOLUI}S9} JO] ySY "PPO! SY} UO ae pepiejei/peddesipuey 3u} 10] SNVAILHO4 JO SpelipunH ‘OSed|o AduUabHi9wWse jue|sSU! JO} pauBlsap die sajyonq odA} WJOq JeaS ‘oddns Apog ||N} 40} JSeYo 0} YSIEM LOI] OSJO} S,pJIYO azis Aue punose AjHnus jij Syjaq ay | ‘ajqe -!2Ae OSsje ae ‘pajqnoi} AjjeoisAyd pue AjjejuswW ou} 40} S}j9q BHululesjsas-Apog YM sjees pajjo|s jeioads ‘MO|9Qq UMOUS 9J4e S}NOAP| JOO|} JeINdOd jessneaSG ‘s}noAe; saBuassed pajees PUue SIIBYD|S9YM JO SUONEUIGWOS SsNOUPA 410} Boeds SEPIAOId (‘y “bS OZ 0} dn abpog ‘OW ‘Anau ‘pio04) ease 1O0}} B1Geasn JO “yy bs gg abe] AjGulsiiduns ay] gjsie Ul WOOIPeSYy {74409 YUM jje—ajqeyleae synoAe] Huneess PACPUL}S/JEYOjOOUM VICHINW Besos ORR Bete eh nc paheivnttr ripot teh PERN ih et poe Bids EXHIBIT IV-6 SAcicenicneset e e ee A First from Funcraft THE “IRONSIDE SPECIAL’’ WHEELCHAIR TRANSPORTATION AND R.V. UNITS NOTE: Requires attendant to manually stow ramp and close side doors. Wheelchair users can now travel and enjoy the “Great Outdoors” with this simple to operate hoist platform for the side doors. Positive, easy to use, chair clamp downs are also available to ensure safety “‘en route’’. The raised ‘Vista Roof’’ permits easy manoeuvering inside with over 6’ headroom so assistance can be comfortably given if needed from a standing position. Motorhome/Camper type interior arrangements are available in several layouts, specially designed for Wheelchair users including Double Beds, Single Bunks, Toilet with special “assist handles’’, custom designed cut-away Kitchen Galley, etc., to make wheelchair mobility into more fun. Available as a conversion of any Long Wheelbase Van shown below. SEE YOUR LOCAL DEALER FOR MORE INFORMATION, VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS & PRICES. VEHICLES Printed in Canada CHEVY or GMC FORD DODGE » " Sa me 2 €LUSeste SOLS+TSz FIVANIOBR OLNOYUOL 3ItAMIS BiIVNOT3ZHM L-AI LIGIHXd EXHIBIT IV-8 uMOP 341] JepO- peddeoipuep esoding jeng sna T1VWS OGLN y & a ORF PORTMAN. RR NEE U SENS ANA RSPAS STINKY ONE IN inseinn seehen 3 REM AON RSLS ALTE EEL UI Vale f andicepped M aus 4 age } ALT hy ‘ x Purn IC i Du Mi ) - ee : Gren le : , : ane a ites aaa Sear pale PO ih IW in Oe ‘ Rit ‘i itis ivan ONY ak ny bee ary c ‘ BN ey ‘ ! ACRE \ ig “10000 oe AARNE OE MPN a NR RGA xi ‘ me ipo shin , ans aa seg gn see — ai age “rie als ! oe cee Xv Vai nim: Aa Send Vite Rie Ny : pean Sag GRAN tN B19 Hf ‘ iddhb cagA OA EXHIBIT IV-10 GINKLEVAN fiNHUiU & ai EXHIBIT IV-11 \ \\ Ny A KANN \ i, ‘ ANN co SPECIAL VEHICLE FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED TWIN COACH HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. KENT, OHIO 44240 EXHIBIT IV-12 EXHIBIT IV-13 A.M, GENERAL CORPORATION GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK AND COACH DIVISION ROHR INDUSTRIES EXHIBIT IV-14 FEATURES OF THREE MANUFACTURERS ' TRANSBUS AM GENERAL CORPORATION The AM General concept for the removal of travel barriers provides a level, wide entry to the bus floor. The concept involves a flat ramp built into the bus which bridges the gap between the bus and a curbside platform. The AM General TRANSBUS has a special feature built into the suspension system which allows the driver to adjust the height of the bus floor to any point between 17 inches and 20 inches off the ground. Level access to the bus is provided by a curbside platform. But because of the low floor design of the AM General TRANSBUS, the curbside platform is only slightly higher above the sidewalk than a standard curb is above the street. GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK AND COACH DIVISION The General Motors concept for the removal of travel barriers provides a lift at the 37 inch wide front door. When not in use the lift is stored under the front step of the bus. The General Motors concept operates as follows. The bus pulls up to the stop and the special suspension system allows the driver to lower the bus and tilt it toward the boarding passengers. As the doors open, the front step projects out from the bus and lowers to the curb or ground as required. After the individual in a wheelchair has rolled on to the enlarged lower step, the curbside edge and two levers on the platform pivot upward to provide a secure restraint for the wheelchair and the step is raised to the bus floor level. When the individual in a wheelchair is in the bus, the step lowers back to its rest position and retracts. The door then closes and the bus can get underway. The lower floor and wide door of the General Motors TRANSBUS make this concept practical for the first time. While current buses have a narrow entry door with two steps up, the General Motors TRANSBUS has a single wide boarding platform from which passengers step up to the bus floor. This wide platform/lower step combination becomes the wheelchair lift, as required. ROHR INDUSTRIES The Rohr design has the lowest floor height of any version of the TRANSBUS. In normal operation, the floor of the bus is only 17 inches above the street. At bus stops the suspension system allows the driver to lower the floor to 13 inches above the street level which is only 7 inches above a standard curb. As the front door opens, a ramp projects out from under the bus floor and lowers to the curb. Because the ramp need only rise 7 inches its total length is only 4 feet. The ramp comes from the top of the step inside the bus and the ramp projects less than 3 feet out from the side of the bus. The Rohr TRANSBUS needs no curbside facilities and can service all existing bus stops. If a curb is not present at the top, the ramp angle becomes steeper than that specified for architectural design standards, but is typical of many ramps currently in piace. in public facilities. ‘sialjddns pue juawabeuew Auedwos ujog Aq yoa!oid GW} 9} 10} UMOUS wseisnujua ay} Aq pue JOM S}i payenjeaa aney OoumM soibajdeued JO uoloea ay} Aq pabeinooua SI ploy ‘IA@ABMOH ‘payayJeW 9q ued ‘QuO|e ITEYO|SQUM MAU BU} JO ‘SIED JBUJO PUL OUI BU} JO} IH GWI 9}28|dWOd & JaY}Ia BJOJaq JNO PAayYIOM aq O} UleWAI SjleEJap AUeW ‘sBulwooyoys JayujJO aAey pue SHhuluado Joop AuewW YbnolU} Huissed wolj SaSn JUsAVId SUIEYD BPIM-YOUI-gzZ BU jeas ied e OJUO APl|S 0} JUeEKdNDIO 9} }IWUad 0} YBiy 00} ave SuIeYD|aayM |EUOIJUSAUOD UO SjA9YM Je} PUNO} SIdeu!BUSe PJOY ‘ajdwexs 104 ‘sueo uaBuassed yyIM A\isea pasn aq pinod yeu} auUO—papsaau Sem idauUjabHo}e WeYO|ASUM JUDIAJJIP © JEU} PAuIWIdJap SeM ji Huo] asojaq yng ‘}sSulj paydweaye 318M SIEYO|@9UM BHuljsixa 0} SUONPOIPOYW ‘SIgaulBUAa ajIGowW -O}NE JO} JENSNuUN JaU}yel SI SIIEYD|@9UM UO YOM JUsWdO|aAeq ‘yeas SJBAUpP @Y} PUIYaQ JIEYDIS99YM Ju} JO BBeMoO}s-}|aS YIM Pa}eloosse aIeMpPJeY Pue ‘YO JEVS PUB JES JUOI BU} O} SUOI}EJE}e ‘JIxXS Pue Ayyua Buunp jyaswiy aoeig JeAUP dy} djay 0} deiys Ajajes e ‘sIOOp ee ee cds arenes AU] J8AO [121 O01 BUI BY} 0} peyoene sdu6 ,jsisse,, puey ‘Jaoum YOUIM puke aiqed e pue jaued 19x90) 0} Jajsuey ASea ue aje}ioes 0} suIeYO Hueajs jeloods e apnjoul ‘soibajdeied eaie-ji01aq yo dnosb $J29 94} O} payOQeuuOd dwes jejow JEUONUBSAUOD UCY) SJBAYM Ja}jjews Pe Kq peyen|jeAs Us9q BABY YOIUM ‘OWUId 9} O} SUOIEDIIPOW eB wos} djay uyim pamojs Si JeUO aYyL SEY JIEYOJAAYM Pal}IPOW-PploO4 auL "$1e9 106J2| 0} 19}2| paydepe aq pjnoo ‘ajaiyaa yOedwoogns aAisuaedxaul Ue 10} pauBisep Ajyeiyiut yt ‘waysAs ysuojow peddedipuey ajqeyxiom ke 3a} SEM (eBed yOeq UO panuljuo9) }! BSNED|q YOM Je}UBWIIadXS YW] BU} 10} UBSOYD SEM Old "YOIESSAI JUBIING S}! Ul YOJEIOS WO AlJENYIA payeys Auedwod dau} ‘SS8jayJOUON “SUBIBJBA |] IEA PLLOM\ peddeoipuey JO} S}O1JUOD PUeY BuldojaAap SiainjoejnuewW O} SUONeOIOads BJOIYBA PSPIAOIC 19}e] PUL JJ@ABSOOY ‘Gq Ul|HURIY JUSPISAld Aq pasn seo Bulno} g-A PsO4 e& PaljiIpoW PJO4 S.OE6] Bu) U| “HEYO|SQ9UM Mau anbiun 3ay} Hulpnjoul yy ySiuO}OW peddesipuey qW| 9}9|dwWoo e Hulayiew pue Hulonpoid 0} UusAibh aq |jIM UO|eIBpPISUOD Inyjsseoons aie SadAjoj}Oid 9uj jo Huljsa} pue uONenjers 4} ‘aueMpseY UONONPOIG qW] adAjoOjO1d Jo JUaWIdOJaAap aq jim Gays yxau BUY “S}JAPOW JEUO!IJUSAUOD UCY} MO}S Puke VSN O} JaISes pue Ja}UH}| JOMOIEU, SI JY} JEYD]99UM JeJUSsWIadx9 Ue JO JUaWdO|aAaq e "JED BY) VPISU! SIIEYDJ99UM JO BHEMO}S Puke AljuUa JO S]SHO}JON pedd COIDUBH DIV QO] aSba 10} UOHEM UO!EIS OJUIg & O} SUONPOIPOW jeyUSWedxy e ‘((UMOP SIEM BU} WO pezAjeied asou}) soiBajdeied ‘pajoajje Ajaianas ysow ay) Bulpnyjoul yuswdinb3 Sdojeasq pio 4 ‘sjsu0joW peddeoipuey jO spaau OI0eds ay} OUI YOIeSSaY e ‘sease Hulmojjoj uy} ul (qW]) ,ebexoed Ajqijiqow peaoidwi,, ue uO BulyJOM Udaq sey ploy ‘ieaA ySed au} 104 ‘uleBe yoeq puke Sa|jiqowojne MOU} OJU! SIJEYD|SAYM JY} WO PaysisseuN aAOW SUOSIaed padded -ipuey Ajjeo1sAyd djay 0} Juawdinbs panoidw! dojanap 0} Bulky SI ‘WOJWOD JaBuessed pue Ajajes ajDIYSA UI Bie SIOABAPUA JEWIOU BSOYUM SJal|ddns Jayuj}O pue Aj}ID WOA MAN JO UO!eIOdI04D (4Sy) yuawdinba AjayeS ueoWeWY ay} YIM Buoje ‘Auedwod J0}0Wy pio ‘OOUBISISSE JNOUIIM SUIEYD|99UM HuIMO}S Puke Sued JO JNO pue ul Bulaow jo Swayjqoid 118y4} 0} UONN|Oos HBulaauiBua ue ajea019 0} BUOP UVa SeY 94}}1| ‘A]}JUBD9I JIU *“S8}e]S PayiuA au} Ul SUOSIad peddeoipuey ajqeyodsue.}-}jas uoljjiu QUO UBY} BOW ale Bay] : SI-AI LIGLIHXd EXHIBIT IV- 16 COSMO DRIVING SCHOOL, PORT CREDIT The individual is only 4' tall, and to be able to see over the steering wheel she sits on a 3%"' high seat. EXHIBIT IV-17 L. z £; SS EXHIBIT IV-18 Sa a + i - . 1 ‘ oat 7a =, i i alli Fi ‘ 6 Y s , | Pee, wm UGs | wt ee) i) ae ee a! eat 8" “thee ie) mnie) % wu dat 5 . vy sft Pai des ui =i a TAS, a Peay, Sa | > \AW { ' ay we i ¥): Suit a i ; 2 7 a, i Ce 1 y WPS, yi indi 7 1 ° ae ; : i. ‘ts Nt ciel = Re ‘Waihe hay ’ ‘ e + +2 (> = ‘ wal é " e f A ae agi V_- RESULTS OF TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR SURVEYS ——$—$——— ER URVE YO In this chapter, we describe the main results of the three separate surveys of physically handicapped people conducted during the course of the study. The results are compiled in a series of tables at the end of the chapter (Tables V-1 to V-21). The highlights are described below in terms of degree of disability of the physically handicapped sample populations, their socio-economic status, their perceived transportation problems, and their existing travel behaviour. SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS follows: 1. The essential characteristics of the three surveys are as Personal interview survey of 292 physically handi- capped people in Metro Toronto (METRO TORONTO). Personal interview survey of 306 physically handi- capped people in five other cities in Ontario (OTHER CITIES). Mailed questionnaire survey with 2,154 respondents from the lists of one private and three provincial agencies (MAIL-OUT). The complete survey methodology is described in Appendix A to this report. A comparative summary of the three surveys is shown on Exhibit V-1. The intent of the Metro Toronto survey was to obtain, for a random sample of physically handicapped people with mobility problems, 7161 TFady-yorey uoT}eUIOFUT G-O puP Aemqns 22 suotqsenb ay ssey foqUOIO] O1R0W Se oWOS - S1OJVUTPA00S Ted0T Aq paseuew AVAINS ‘{sadaMeTAIEAUT FO uoTsstuized yees suotjeztuesi09 UOTIeATUTT AFT FGow Jo sadkq ve1y3 Aq Petsytyezqys SAST][ ,suotjzeztue310 peddestpuey jo otdmes wopuey eiTeuuotjseanb YFIA MOTAXAUT [eUOSizdg SHILIO YaHLO 919M 9}e1 esuodseai 3y} BUTASsMOT S10RZDeF JY FO oWOS 6/61 [tady-Arenuer Inotaeyeq [exeAeIq TeTJqusajod epou Aq swetqoid uOTJeEWIOFUT G-O SuTpn[out ‘spiosea dtaq suoTzeITWTT AIT{TGou ejep DTMOUNDe-oOTS0S ajaTdwoo arom SO9WMITAIIIUT Fo uotsstuized yees suotjeztuesig SOTITT tqestp -eSTp JO vso.UepToUuT Aq pdTF -T9e19S SISTT ,suotjJeztTuesi0 poddestpuey jo o[dwes wopuey eitTeuuotysoenb YATA MOTAIOIUT TeUOSsieg OLNOYOL OULAW "—puuotsea OF FOU B9TGUGU SULrASe AVAAIT suTAVAOD UT UOTRIONAASUT - sesseippe 3u0oim - SAS9AINS OM} I9YRZO YRIM deTAsAo - 7161 [tady epom Aq sumstqoad Spi0odea dt13 suot IeITWTT ATT Tqow eB Jep ITWOUNIS-OTIOS sUWOS ,(eqea ssuodsez 4/€) >oT‘Z edo[TexaAus uinje1 pue SetTouese anoy Aq 4999eT 1eA0g suetqoid ART{Tqow eaey 03 paspnl PeTqestp JO a10M SqST[T ‘{sqSsTT ejeiedes anoy jo o{dwes wopuey SATAUNS AHL FHL JO SOLLSIYSLOVYVHO T-A LIGIHXd ef SMOTAIIRUI JO sajeg ojzeutxoiddy qua jUu079 sitTeuuoTAsaeny SOATBUUOTISONH peqetduoy Fo *on uot IeAqsTuTMpy Advains sdinpssoig etdues Aeaing jo sadkj their mobility limitations, existing travel behaviour, existing travel problems, and potential travel behaviour if some of the barriers to transportation were removed. The same basic survey was extended to five other cities in the province to determine whether the same problems existed in other cities of different sizes and in different geographic regions. The mailed questionnaire was used to extend the coverage to all of Ontario and to provide a much larger number of handicapped respondents. The most difficult methodological problem of surveying the disabled was to select an accurate sample of the physically handicapped population with mobility aabiGree In each survey attempts were made to select as representative a sample as possible, but there were important constraints, as follows: Te In the METRO TORONTO survey it was extremely difficult to locate respondents in some disability categories, and it was also difficult to screen the respondents to ensure that they in fact had transportation problems. tae; In the OTHER CITIES survey, the smaller samples (about 60) in each city prevented a stratification of the sample according to disability incidence level (which would include about 25 disabilities), and certain disabilities thus became over-represented. ae In the MAIL-OUT survey, the universe population from which a random sample was taken was biased toward those receiving some form of government benefits (Vocational Rehabilitation and Family Benefits pay- ments), and employees insured by the Workmen's Compensation Board, Undertaking three separate surveys provided a means to use three alternative approaches to sample selection, and thus provided a better basis to interpret results. The survey results substantiate the biases in the samples selected and are commented on where appro- priate. DEGREE OF DISABILITY To determine how disabled the sample population is, we asked the following questions on the Metro Toronto and Other Cities' surveys: - degree of mobility limitation - the length of time disabled - special aids used - type of disability. The mail-out questionnaire asked a more direct question about transportation limitations. in the mail-out survey, we asked whether the respondent could use public transportation without difficulty, with difficulty, or not at all. Through an indirect method described in Chapter VI, we determined the transportation limitation categories for the other two surveys as well. The results of these questions are shown in Tables V-1 to V-4 at the conclusion of this chapter. The tables show that: LS The proportionate number of handicapped in the Metro Toronto and Other Cities' surveys are divided into four mobility limitation groups as follows: (a) those defining themselves as bedridden and essentially confined to home (12% to 15%); (b) those who need the help of another person or aid to get around (42% to 55%); (c) those who do not need assistance but have some trouble getting around (13% to 20%); (d) those who have very few mobility problems CLE stO* 267.) Ze Tranaportation limitation results determined indirectly show that the Metro Toronto sample appears to be skewed toward the less severely disabled as compared with the sample from the other cities, and that the mail-out respondents are even less severely disabled than the Metro Toronto sample. She More than half of the respondents in all three surveys had been disabled for over ten years. From the mail- out results, showing most respondents with more than a year of disability, it appears that the sample consisted almost entirely of permanently disabled. 4. The respondents from the other cities' survey were heavily weighted toward wheelchair users; 44% use wheelchairs in the other cities' sample, 21% in Metro Toronto and 12% in the mail-out sample. We also compared the proportions of disabilities represented by each sample. Rather than compare all 22 disability categories, they were combined into six groups shown on Exhibit V-2. The rationale for these groups is that the common feature among disabilities in each group is a similar degree of severity as indicated in the mail-out survey question on transportation limitation. For example, those with heart disease, hearing impairments, and visual impairments suffer from dif- ferent disabilities, but have similar mobility problems. This chart shows that there are differences in the proportion of disabilities represented. In Category V, Metro Toronto is somewhat over-represented compared to the other two survey samples, and to some sieujieg pue HoTMAeW ‘4eog *paqzeoTput se WyusTA 02 JJeT worzy AQATAaAeS Jo AepXO 9Yy YT ‘suetqoid AQT[Tqow Jo saeiZep Ae{[TwWTS sAeYy dnorzsd yore UTYIIM SOTIT[IGeSTp 24 :ALON . ig HadAdS LSOW WUGAGS LSVAT \ eT TFydowey s}ueu -itedw]I [equa sqjuowazateduy 3aq] szusowited OT[Od Squseuiteduy STSOIqTY IT3SAD -WI [eNSsTA Asdattdq way ‘sjuewzted ustzeumeyy stsoretos eTdtjarnw ZuTpn{[oOUut sjuowited SeYoI4S -w] outds /yoeg pue Aydoijzshq azelnosny ‘squowazteduy -W] 3UTIPv=ayH As{ed [eigeizsa9 3a] io wiy STATAUIAY epTseTderpend /etse {dered jo uotjeqnduy projeuneuyy Azojeitdsay seseestqd qieeyqH +:4103899e) 19430 ‘. ¢ oe esoconeee Pal occa =: % se ot = 5 %OT 407 sro-tren [EZ] woe S8TITO 19420 OVUOAOT, OAQZIW %07 IA A AI II II 3 TIdWVS HOVE NI CALNASHYdaY SHILITIAVSIA c7A LIGIHXa FIdNVS TIVLOL dO % extent this is also true for Category VI. This is due to an attempt made in Metro Toronto to stratify the sample according to incidence of disability in the general population, and that people in these categories were more difficult to identify in the other two surveys. A large number of people in Category III (amputations, spine, arm, and leg impairments) in the mail-out survey is due to the larger number of Workmen's Compen- sation, Disability Pension and Vocational Rehabilitation recipients of provincial aid in this category. The reason that the other cities' sample includes a relatively higher number of Category I disabilities (quadraplegia, MD, and MS) is the emphasis in the other cities' survey on obtaining a good sample of those who could not use public transit. As pointed out above, the sample for the other cities was stratified according to mobility limitations rather than attempting to select them in proportion to the incidence of disability in the general population. The composition of the three samples reflects the differences in approach to reaching people for interviews. We feel that the Metro Toronto sample is most representative of the threee, but selected parts of the samples of all three surveys can be directly compared and analyzed. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS In the Metro Toronto and other cities' questionnaire, we asked for the respondent's age, sex, income, living arrangements, current activity status, number of dependents, and four questions relating to the general attitudes of the disabled. In the mail-out survey, we asked for sex, age and income. The results are shown in Tables V-5 to V-9. The highlights of the results are as follows: i The age of the respondents is skewed towards the elderly, with Metro Toronto especially including a significant number of people over 65. The mail- out questionnaire under-represented the under-19 and over-65 groups, largely because of the composition of people receiving provincial benefits. vi The sex distribution in the mail-out was heavily biased toward the male respondents due to the large return from the Workmen's Compensation Board recipients. are The income of respondents in all three surveys was very low with about half the Metro Toronto and other cities' population and more than half of the mail- out sample of people receiving as a family income less than $3,000 a year. Metro Toronto respondents have family incomes somewhat higher than the other cities' sample. 4. Less than 20% of the physically handicapped work full time, and only about 5% work part time. How- ever, only about 6% of the respondents in the Metro and other cities' surveys consider themselves unemployed and wanting to work. A quarter of the sampled handicapped are retired and about 15% are students (mainly schoolchildren). ae Some handicapped people live alone or in institutions, but most live with their families, parents, or rela- tives. Less than 20% have dependents. 6. Handicapped people seem to feel that people are basically cooperative, more particularly bus and taxi drivers. They are less convinced that handi- capped people are not an inconvenience to the general public or that they make the general public feel un- comfortable. However, while a significant minority (from 16% to 43%) have negative feelings about their rapport with the general public, the majority have relatively positive feelings. Comparisons with the general population were made where possible, and the results are presented graphically in Tables V-10 to V-12 for age, income, and employment. These results show that in general, the surveyed physically handicapped people are older, much poorer, and less employed (though not necessarily more unemployed), than the general population. The differences in results between the three surveys again reflect the different compositions of the sample. Metro Toronto people in the sample are somewhat older, less poor, more employed, and more independent than the other cities' sample. These survey results are consistent with the more severely disabled status of the other cities’ sample, as described above. TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS In the three surveys we asked questions about the problems the physically handicapped people have in using taxi, bus (and subways in Toronto), commercial vans, and automobiles. It was first asked whether the respondent used that particular mode, and then what his problems were in using it. The results are shown in Tables V-13 to V-19. Our findings are discussed below for each of these modes. Taxi Usage and Problems Taxi usage is relatively high among the physically handicapped, even though their incomes are low. Taxis are, of course, a very convenient transportation service, and in many cases the only service available to the disabled. The physically handicapped people who do use taxis find that there are various problems associated with them. About 12% to 20% give "physical problems" as the problem in taxi usage, reflecting the severity of each individual's disability. Another 10% in Metro Toronto and other cities, and 39% of mail-out respondents comment on how expensive they are, while 18% in Toronto and 9% in the other cities have problems getting taxis to provide services. The relatively high figure in the latter problem area in Metro Toronto might to some extent reflect the general level of service complaints that is apparent among the public at large at present. Of those who do not use taxis, most of the other cities' people cite their physical disability as the reason why, while in the Metro Toronto and mail-out surveys the main reasons listed as first mentions were ''do not need taxis'' and "too expensive". The high "do not need'' response in Metro Toronto is possibly due to good transit services, and in other cities to the dominant usage of passenger cars. There are many complaints by physically handicapped people about their receiving poor taxi service relative to non-handicapped people, especially when they have no other alternative. The surveys show that there are problems with taxis, apart from them being too expensive, but that the large number of people who are physically handi- capped appear to be using them without commenting critically on the service. It would appear, then, that taxis form a feasible mode of transportation for most of the physically handicapped, while a small minority continue to have problems with them. Bus Usage and Problems As Table V-14 shows, just under a quarter of the Metro Toronto sample and slightly less than half of the other cities' sample are physically unable to use buses. Another 15% to 16% can use buses only if accompanied. Some physically handicapped people used to use buses but do not do so any more. About a quarter of Metro Toronto's sample use buses with difficulty and half that percentage of the sample in the other cities' survey use buses with difficulty. Again, these results point to a more severe degree of disability of the sample for the other cities as opposed to Metro Toronto. The mail-out questionnaire results - Table y-15 - show that there is an even split between those who use buses and those who do not. About half of those who do not use bus travel by car instead, while the majority of the others cite physical disability as the reason for not using buses. The results of the question about problems with bus usage show that there are many problems, but that not one particular problem is dominant. There are problems from the beginning of the journey right to the end in terms of waiting for the bus, boarding, overcrowding, getting off, transferring between bus routes, and needing accompaniment. V-10 As hypothesized at the outset of the study, there is no one improvement that will make bus travelling very much easier for the physically handicapped, since the whole ride is a series of barriers for those who either cannot take a bus or take it with difficulty. The mail-out survey provides a perception of barriers for those who use buses. The walking distance to the bus stop and boarding and leaving the bus appear to rise above the other problems indicated. In Metro Toronto we asked for responses on problems with subway usage, and the results are shown on Table V-16. The differences in res- ponse pattern between bus and subway usage in Metro Toronto appear inconsequential for both the degree of use and barriers to use. From these survey results it would appear that improving bus and subway systems would affect a small percentage of the physically handicapped who might be able to use the buses or subways if improve- ments were made and also those who use them now with some difficulty. The results also indicate that: - bus routing, distance to bus and subway stations, and access to the stations or waiting at the stations are as much a barrier as the vehicles themselves - improvements in one aspect of the bus/subway system will only make the whole system marginally more accessible and usable for the physically handicapped - possibly training and educational sessions aimed at the physically handicapped would improve their capability of overcoming the existing barriers (not simply training to learn which bus to take, but how to use the stops with the least walking, etc.). Commercial Van Usage The survey results for use by the physically handicapped people of commercial vans adapted for wheelchair usage, are shown on Table V-17. The significantly greater usage of commercial vans (which could have been interpreted to mean taxis) in other cities (27%) over Metro Toronto (8%), and mail-out respondents (7%) is difficult to interpret. The other cities' results possibly can be accounted for by the greater mobility problems in that sample. Expense seems to be the problem most keenly felt in Metro Toronto, while inadequate service seems to be more of a problem in the other cities. Expense and problems getting in and out of vehicles are the main factors for those who use vans and responded to the mail-out survey, while the lack of special van services in the community is a problem with some respondents. The high number who complain about vehicle accessibility probably illustrates that they perceive all manner of vehicles as special vans. V-12 As a transportation service, commercial vans appear to be given a fairly high rating, relative to taxis and buses. However, at current rates, the ability to pay for the service remains as a major problem. This in turn limits the extent to which commercial vans have been able to develop as a service to the handicapped. Auto Usage Auto usage questions on the surveys were specifically about ability to drive private automobiles. The results, shown in Table V-19, indicate that about a quarter of the Metro Toronto sample population drive regularly as opposed to about a fifth of the other cities' sample. In the mail-out questionnaire, we asked whether the respondent had a driver's licence, and 38% replied that they did. From the surveys it appears that a significant minority of the physically handicapped are auto drivers. A question which was asked in the mail-out survey tried to determine those who might be interested in driving private automobiles adapted for use by physically handicapped people. Eighteen per cent of the sample indicated that they would be interested, about three-quarters of whom had no driver's licence at present. Therefore, it appears that there would be some demand for specially adapted cars from many who are not now auto drivers. EXISTING TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR One of the chief purposes of the surveys was to document the existing travel behaviour of the physically handicapped. We asked each interviewee to describe his trips over the last week for the Metro Toronto and other cities' surveys, and for three days in the case of the mail-out questionnaire. To provide an overall picture of the travel behaviour of the physically handicapped, Tables V-20 to V-25 present the travel behaviour results of the three surveys. The high- lights are as follows: Work trips are less frequent among the more severely handicapped. Trips for medical purposes (10% to 12% of the return trips) are probably higher than in the general population, but the figures are lower than the general population for other trip purposes. The high use of taxis is the most striking feature of the mode results. Taxi usage also correlates with the severity of the disabilities of each sample and the availability of other modes, with almost 40% of other cities' interviewee trips being bys taxd , 4a quarter of the trips by taxi in Metro Toronto and 11% in the mail-out survey. The table describing the mode results also shows the very heavy use made of existing public transit in Metro Toronto and the very high dependency on the automobile by the mail-out sample. These results stem from the heavy transit orientation of Metro Toronto as opposed to the rest of the province. The trip rates of Metro Toronto and other cities (1.11 and 0.97 respectively) show that in total the physically handicapped travel about half as much as the regular population (at a trip ratesofi2.0).esThe high trip rate (1.56) of the mail-out sample shows the relatively less handicapped status of those respondents. As might be expected the trip rates increase as the mobility limitation decreases; however, this tendency is not as pronounced as might be expected. The table showing the dominant mode for each trip purpose (Table V-23) illustrates the extensive reliance on the automobile, particularly as an auto passenger for the non-regular trips (i.e. V-14 shopping, leisure, and medical). The use of taxis for education trip purposes in Metro Toronto and in the other cities reflects schoolchildren trans- portation. I As Table V-24 shows, the dominant mode for the other cities' survey is as an auto passenger for the more severely physically disabled. In Metro Toronto taxi is important for this group of people. The mail-out survey results show that for all but those who must use special vehicles private auto- mobiles and the bus system suffice for the most part. 8. Unlike those who are not restricted by mobility, whose main purpose for travelling is work, those who have difficulty travel more often for leisure, education, or shopping purposes. In conjunction with potential travel behaviour under various hypotheses, the results shown have been cross-tabulated to arrive at demand estimates for various service options. These are described in the next chapter. From Existing To Future Demand Questions were asked about future travel behaviour under different transportation improvement options. The results are presented as part of the analysis in the next chapter. At this point, we provide the combined results of a series of questions relating to future travel behaviour. Questions 5(b), 6, and 7 asked about difficulties in finding a job, shopping and undertaking personal business outside the home, and participating in leisure activ- ities. The results of "first mentions" are on Table V-26. The important point about these answers is that there are more than transportation (and cost) barriers inhibiting the more active participation of the disabled in everyday activities. People's attitudes and accessibility to building appear more significant than transportation. Therefore, caution must be expressed in interpreting future demand estimates if transportation services are improved or costs reduced. TRIPS OUTSIDE THE CITY Though the study focused on in-city transportation problems, there was considerable interest expressed by disabled people and govern- ment officials at the outset about inter-city transportation problems. For information purposes, therefore, part of the questionnaire requested information about travel behaviour and travel problems outside the city. Tables V-27 to V-29 document the replies, showing that: - about a third of respondents travelled outside the city at least once per month, if not more - the most frequently used mode was the automobile - the problems mentioned were a scattering set of irritations, with inaccessible washrooms perhaps the most noteworthy of those mentioned. Inter-urban transportation problems for the disabled appears to be primarily (a) inaccessibility of public transportation modes, v-15 V-16 (b) specialized medical facilities located only in large urban centres requiring expensive inter-urban medical trips for out-of-town patients, and (c) similarly expensive recreation trips for people who need to travel by special vehicles. A more articulated definition of these problems and work toward solving them is beyond the scope of this study. Stoujieg pue yoTMIeW_ ‘j3eaqg sfem aaoge ay jo Aue UT paztuTT 30N esuodsez on A[ee1y punorze 3uT3403 21qn023 sAeY 3nq ‘uosisd isyjoue 10 pte [etoods somos JO dyTey ey} pseu jou og *AA[NOTJJIP ou yATA sasnq Te00T eyeq ued [ - *JTIshu saTap 10 spueytiz Io Txe} kq usATIp we ATTensn JT pue Ajtummos Aw ut wejsks snq ou ST ezsyuy - punoie 333 02 pte Tetoeds e so dzay ay paay AIT Tqestp Aw Jo esneoeq AYINIFFITP yatsA ATuo 3nq “sasnq [e00, oye URD IT - punoie 333 03 uosied aeyjoue Jo diay ay peay *JTeSAM SATIP 30 Spuetay 10 Fxe} Aq usATIp oq ued ynq AATLTqGe -STp Aw Jo esnedeq seasnqg TB9OT oye} JouuRPD [ - out} 2943 JO Asom 10 II® esnoy ut Aejs Asny “siteyo[oosym Butjep ~OuMODDe BTOTYeA TetToeds Aq st [eaez3 03 AEM qJUsTUeAUOD Jsow 9y} ‘AIT[IGestp Aw JO osnedeg - SUT} 943 FO ASO IO IT® peq ut Aeqs Asny UOTITUTFJOd UoTIeITWTT uoTZeIIOdSueI] (%)oqUOIOL O19R (%) SeT3IT9 212430 uoTIeITWTT AITTIGow S59 9 490 49070 DIDO aio ool nooo eE- TABLE V-2 BREAKDOWN OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION LIMITATION SURVEY | TRANSPORTATION LIMITATION Toronto Cities Mail-Out USER GROUPS | Cannot Take Local Buses Must Use Special vehicle. Cannot Take Local Buses, but Can be Driven, or Can Drive Myself | I can Take Local Buses Only With Difficulty I Can Take Local Buses With No Difficulty No Bus System in Community No Response | Total: | 292 100%| 306 100%)2,154 100% 1 . Since Metro Toronto and other cities' respondents were not asked to categorize themselves in this way, other responses were interpreted as explained in the footnote at the base of page VI-2. 2. "Special Vehicles" refers to a van, bus, or automobile with special equipment to accommodate wheelchair-bound or other severely disabled passengers. Peat, Marwick and Partners a aag ZOOT 6T TIVLOL 4a4atd ddUTS SleujIeg pue yoTAreW 3e98d uByuL ssoq ALITIGVSId dO HLONYT £-A ATaVL NSN eee ieee eee ee SdILIO YaHLO OLNOYOL OWLAW LNO-'TIVW TABLE V-4 SPECIAL AIDS USED Metro Other | Toronto Cities ys va Mail-out (% No Response No Special Aids Wheelchair Canes Crutches White Cane Prosthetic Device Upper Prosthetic Device Lower Hearing Aid Other Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V—-5 AGE Metro Other Toronto(% Cities(%) | Mail-out(% No Response Under 19 19 - 30 31 - 45 46 - 64 65 Years and Older SEX Metro Other sie alk Faia Male Female Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-6 INCOME Metro Other ova Cities Mail-out In Dollars rs re 12 igs 22 i 32 | 45 iT 6 10 10 | to: toe | 00 | 10 No Response Less than $1,000 $1,001 - $3,000 $3,001 - $5,000 $5,001 - $10,000 Over $10,000 Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-7 CURRENT ACTIVITY STATUS Metro Other Toronto Cities Mail-out Activit % v5 th No Response Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Unemployed but could Work | Question not Retired Asked Student Looking after House or Family Something Else ee ee Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-8 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS Metro Other morons Cities Mail-out v4 ie No Response Question Not Asked Live Alone With Parents or Relatives With Friends With Own Family In Residence or Institution ee Pe i | a Ba A oor | rom | | DEPENDENTS _ Question Not Asked No Response Yes Peat, Marwick and Partners Sioujieg pue yoTmAew ‘jeeg ipeadeotpuey 94} p2reMOj 2ATIeAVdoOOoUN oie SI2ATIp Txe} pue snq,, poeddeostpuey 4a 947 SpieMoq sATZeAed009 -un A[[e19ues are sq{doag,, n®Tqe31ozuooun Jeez ped -deofpuey 24} axew a{doag,, “SE ,,S194,0 02 VvdUaTUSeAUOD -uT ue oie peddeotpuesy euy,, uoTzeuTquo) esuodsay | uoTJeutTquo) SJUSUI9ReIS SdILIO YaHLO OLNOYOL OULAN 7 SJUSWSIEIS BZUTMOTLOF 9y} UTM seASesTp Azo vea8e nod 1eyze4M ow [1299 “‘MeTA yo QuTod anok worg ‘wey SpieMOJ opnjtz4e ,SeTdoed Jo asnedeq st uaqjo sazow TeAeiz Jou op Asdy3 uoSsBor 94 3847 SN PTO} eAeYy etTdoed peddeotpuey ouos,, Gx 1TdVSIG SCUYVMOL SHCALILLV 6-A ATAVL A8AINS InOQ-T Fen G9 4940 [acnal n€ - OZ a 6t 79PUn moe A: iS geaag HEHE] AVAINS AdvAIns umopyeeig o3y Seti) 19430 OWUOIOT 0O130W uot je{tndog *juy POTS TESooseeooeeeeaee000 NOILVINdOd TVHYANGD °SA GaIGVSIGC - NOILAGIHLSIA FOV OT-A ATEVL OT Oc Of 07 OS x *somoout A[TTwWej} o1e sz[nsea Aaains pue ‘guoouy 1ay10M Jad aie Sein3ty 000°S$ 99 ToO‘Ee$ Exmag 000°OT$ 2940 [™—~j000‘¢$ 02 TO0'TS SSSss edoouT uotT\erndog [e4aue9 : ALON ——_ Avains INQ-TTeW LAA O00°OTS 93 TOO'SS aT OOO‘ TS tepun Feet 64 Asaings S9TITD 1943 Ty vist \X °° rion ° wi ae ° AdAins OJUOIOT O1QOW uoTje[ndog [e1s9uaey OT1IPUQ 10g aBeIsAy Zo Ne \ \5 \E Li - ° oo 0.0 °%o LY LiL Li: \ Y UMMC NOTLVINdOd TWHHNAD “SA GHTGVSIG — NOLINGIYLSIG HWOONT TT-A WTTaVL OT 0¢ 0” TABLE V-12 EMPLOYMENT - DISABLED VS. GENERAL POPULATION 50 40 30 20 10 \\ Other Cities Metro Toronto Ont. Population Survey Survey Employed TABLE V-13 TAXI USAGE Toronto Other Cities Mail-Out PROBLEMS WITH TAXI USAGE Other Cities USE TAXIS: No Response No Problems Physical Problems Too Expensive Cannot Get Taxis to Provide Service Other 4 6 ra eee DO NOT USE TAXIS: No Response Physically Unable Do not Need Taxis Too Expensive Cannot get Adequate Service Other Note: Problem questions were open ended for Metro Toronto and Other Cities surveys, and first mentions only were recorded. Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-14 BUS USAGE AND PROBLEMS BUS USAGE Toronto (7%) No Response Can use with no difficulty but take other means Use it with no difficulty Use it with some difficulty Used to use it but not any more Can only use it if accompanied Cannot _use it at all Total: % Answering % Answering "Very "Very Difficult" Difficult" proiens ‘+) <2) Walking distance to/from bus Waiting time at bus stop Boarding and leaving bus Getting in and out of seat Standing in a moving bus Overcrowding on a bus Transferring between bus routes Knowing which bus to take Needing accompaniment 1. Only those who cannot use buses were asked whether each problem was "very difficult", "somewhat difficult", or "not at all difficult". 2. Problems were read out to the respondents who were to answer "very difficult", "somewhat difficult", or "not at all difficult". We show here the percentage of respondents who replied "very difficult" to each item. Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-15 BUS USAGE - MAIL-OUT SURVEY No No System Response No Exists Do you use Buses? THOSE WHO USE BUSES: No Response No problems Walking distance to bus stop Waiting time at bus stop Boarding and leaving bus (difficulty with steps) Standing on a moving bus Transferring between bus lines Drivers are uncooperative Others Overcrowding on Bus THOSE WHO DO NOT USE BUSES: No Response Physical disability prevents use of local bus system I use taxis or automobiles instead I cannot afford local buses I am uneasy in crowds Others 100% Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-16 SUBWAY USAGE VS. BUS USAGE SUBWAY/BUS USAGE METRO San __Usage ea e Can use with no difficulty but take other means Use with no difficulty Use with some difficulty Used to use it but not any more Can only use it if accompanied Cannot use it at all | | No Response 7 57 (1) PROBLEMS WITH SUBWAY/BUS USAGE: "Very DLtticule No Response Getting to and from subway or bus Getting down to the subway Boarding and leaving subway or bus Getting in and out of seats Standing on moving car or bus Overcrowding on subways or buses Transferring to/from bus Need accompaniment Waiting time at bus stop Knowing which bus to take 1. Only those who cannot use buses were asked whether each problem was "very difficult", "somewhat difficult", or "not at all difficult". Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-17 COMMERCIAL VAN USAGE No Yes Response Metro Toronto Other Cities Mail-out THOSE WHO USE VANS: No Response No problems Too expensive Service provided inadequate Others THOSE WHO DO NOT USE VANS: No Response Do not need service Too expensive Service provided inadequate Unaware of service Others 0 i a el a 100% 1 Peat, Marwick and Partners ‘TABLE V-18 PROBLEMS WITH COMMERCIAL VAN SERVICE - MAIL-OUT THOSE WHO USE VANS: No problems Problems getting in and out of vehicle Too expensive Drivers are uncooperative Service is not provided as often as needed Other THOSE WHO DO NOT USE VANS: Do not need special vehicle Service does not exist in community Service exists but too expensive Physically unable to use special service Drivers uncooperative Other Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-19 AUTO DRIVERS [auto vrivers ves | no | no Response | total | Metro Toronto (access to auto) Other Cities (access to auto) Mail-out (driver's licence) INTEREST IN DRIVING ADAPTED CAR (MAIL-OUT): No Response 31% Yes 18 No 37 Impossible 13 Too young 1 Total: 100% OF THOSE INTERESTED IN DRIVING ADAPTED CARS: People without driver's licence hah People with driver's licence Total: Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-20 DISTRIBUTION OF RETURN TRIP PURPOSES | eto Toronto | Other Ctetes| wait-out Trip Purpose Work Shopping Leisure Medical | | | Education : | Total: | 100% 100% 100% Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-21 DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING TRIPS BY MODE | Metro Toronto Other Cities Bus Subway Van Taxi Auto (as driver and passenger) Auto Driver Auto Passenger Taxi Wheelchair Van Bus Other Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V—22 EXISTING DAILY TRIP! RATES FOR EACH MOBILITY LIMITATION CATEGORY MOBILITY LIMITATION CATEGORY METRO TORONTO | OTHER CITIES Stay in Bed All or Most the Time Stay in the House All or Most of the Time Need Another Person Need Special Aid Trouble Getting Around Not Limited AVERAGE Can Use Public Transportation With Difficulty Can Use Public Transportation With No Difficulty No Bus System, But Can Drive or Be Driven Cannot Use Public Transportation, But Can Drive or Be Driven Must Use Special Vehicle AVERAGE 1. Trip rates are for one way trips only. 2. The relatively high trip rates for people in these categories would appear to be a contradiction with the mobility limitation category, but respondents seemed to prefer to define their mobility status in these terms rather than in the other category options. Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-23 DOMINANT MODE FOR EACH TRIP PURPOSE TRIP PURPOSE | METRO TORONTO OTHER CITIES MAIL-OUT Work Bus Taxi-Auto Driver Auto Driver Education Taxi Taxi Bus Shopping Auto Driver Auto Passenger Auto Driver Leisure Auto Passenger Auto Passenger Auto Driver Medical Taxi Auto Passenger Bus Personal Business * * Bus * Question not asked in these two surveys. Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-24 DOMINANT MODE FOR EACH MOBILITY LIMITATION CATEGORY MOBILITY LIMITATION CATEGORY METRO TORONTO | OTHER CITIES Must Stay in Bed All or Most of the Timel Taxi | Special Van Must Stay at Home All or Most of the Time Bus-Taxi Auto Passenger Need Another Person Taxi Auto Passenger Need Special Aid Taxi Auto Passenger Trouble Getting Around Auto Passenger| Auto Passenger Not Limited Bus | Auto Driver-Bue TRANSPORTATION LIMITATION CATEGORY MAIL-OUT Can Use Public Transportation With Difficulty Can Use Public Transportation With No Difficulty No Bus System, But Can Drive or Be Driven Auto Driver Cannot Use Public Transportation, But Can Drive or Be Driven Auto Driver Must Use Special Vehicle Special Van 1. As noted in Table V-23, many respondents defined their mobility status in these two categories. Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V=-25 DOMINANT PURPOSE FOR EACH MOBILITY CATEGORY | ; METRO TORONTO OTHER CITIES MOBILITY LIMITATION CATEGORY Must Stay in Bed All or Most of the Timel Leisure Leisure Must Stay at Home All or Most of the Time? Shopping-Health Care | Leisure Need Another Person Education Work~Education Need Special Aid Leisure-Education Leisure Trouble Getting Around Leisure-Shopping Work Work Work MAIL-OUT Work Not Limited TRANSPORTATION LIMITATION CATEGORY Can Use Public Transportation With Difficulty Can Use Public Transportation With No Difficulty Shopping No Bus System, But Can Drive or Be Driven Work-Shopping Cannot Use Public Transportation, But Can Drive or Be Driven Work Must Use Special Vehicle Education 1. As noted in Table V-23, many respondents defined their mobility status in these two categories. Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-26 REASONS FOR ACTIVITY LIMITATIONS th to |_wetro Toronto | other cities No Difficulty Transportation Reasons Not being Able to Afford it People's Attitudes Difficulties in Getting Into Buildings 6. (tee dase eal Other 2 6.0 17.0 100% 100% Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-27 FREQUENCY OF TRIPS OUTSIDE THE CITY Three or More Trips Per Month MAIL-OUT (Question Not Asked) One to Three Trips Per Month Less than Once a Month Never No Responses TOTALS Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-28 MODE FOR TRIPS OUTSIDE THE CITY EN TT SS Car | 49 (Question Not Asked) Bus Trains Combination Other No Responses Peat, Marwick and Partners TABLE V-29 PROBLEMS WITH INTERCITY TRAVEL TORONTO OTHER CITIES No Responses No Problems Inaccessible Washrooms Not Enough/Adequate Service Disability Prevents Travelling Confusion re: Schedule and Stations Physical Barriers Others Peat, Marwick and Partners i; A,’ ry pod j <=, O16 57 ee de ee 4 j en we i sv =) ae j ¥ a J a eid! 3 ~ « 7 ) tbe) ; a “7 ve . | i 7 : ae | {e q d Seo ai re ‘ha ¢ ; ' re euelTie* in, q1812 79 er uiith VI-1 VI_- TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS: DEMAND AND COST ESTIMATES Results of the three surveys conducted during che course of the study were outlined in the previous chapter. This chapter trans- lates these survey findings into present and future demand estimates for various service alternatives (transportation options), for different classes of physically handicapped (user groups). From these demand estimates, we calculate equipment needs and costs of providing various levels of service for different user groups. EXISTING TRAVEL BY USER GROUPS Definition of User Groups The term "user group" is the way used to categorize the dis- abled into their capability of using different transportation modes. These categories assign the physically handicapped to a number of "captive" transportation modes (due to their disabilities), i.e. (1) can take local buses with no difficulty, (2) with difficulty, (3) not at all but can be driven or can drive, (4) must have special vehicle. Demand estimates for new or improved transportation services can be directly related to each of these user groups. In the mail-out survey, the disabled respondents were asked directly what category they thought was most appropriate to their trans- portation situation. In the other two surveys, respondents were EXHIBIT VI-1 BREAKDOWN OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION LIMITATION =e ee os Peo USER GROUPS Cannot Take Local Buses Must Use Special Vehicle Cannot Take Local Buses, But Can Be Driven Or Can Drive Myself I Can Take Local Buses Only With Difficulty I Can Take Local Buses With No Difficulty Total Respondents To this Question pono ee ERE See 274 100 288 100 1 763° 100 1. How respondents from the Metro Toronto and other cities' surveys were categorized is explained in the text. 2. "Special Vehicles" refers to a van, bus, or automobile with special equipment to accommodate wheelchair-bound or other severely disabled passengers. 3. The 'no responses" and the "no bus system in community" were excluded. Peat, Marwick and Partners categorized much the same way, compared to the mail-out response cate- gories as follows: Mail-out Categories 1. Cannot take local buses, must use special vehicle. Cannot take local buses, but can be driven or can drive myself. I can take local buses only with difficulty. I can take local buses with difficulty Metro Toronto and Other Cities Categories! Le Yes, use a commercial van (special vehicle) - response d(a) on questionnaire. Cannot use buses, can use if accompanied, or used to use them but not now - 10(a), 4, 5, or 6. Some difficulty but still can travel alone - 10(a), 3. Use with no difficulty, or can - use but always use other modes Sul0(Ca) 1 The only difficulty in this categorization is that "must use'' special vehicle in the mail-out is equated to "do use" in the other two surveys. This procedure tends to make the existing and future trip rates of this user group category relatively higher in the Metro and other cities than in the mail-out survey results. number of respondents in each category for each survey. Exhibit VI-1 lists the categories of user groups and the This exhibit clearly shows that the other cities' survey had a sample which had a higher proportion of severely disabled than either of the other two Since No.1 and Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive, all those who were categorized in No.1 were not included in Nos. 2, So rand ee, VI-2 VI-3 surveys, and that the mail-out survey had a greater percentage of respondents who have no difficulty with local buses. As discussed in Chapter V, the sample selected for the Other Cities' survey was pur- posely stratified to include the more severely disabled while the mail- out sample was drawn from provincial and private agency lists which included many people who were disabled but who had no transportation problems, Even though the covering letter of the mail-out survey instructed people to respond only if they had transportation problems, as the results show there was a high response rate from those who apparently do not have trouble with public transit. User Group Trip Rates The survey data was analyzed to determine the daily trip rate for persons in each of the four user groups developed above, for each of the three surveys. The results are shown on Exhibit VI-2. These trip rates (number of trips which a person takes in one day) were cal- culated for two groups of trip purposes. Work and education trips (basically pre-booked, regular trips) were analyzed as one group, while all other trip purposes (shopping, recreation, etc.) were analyzed as another group. This second group of trip purposes tends to be less regular in demand, and consequently a different service demand pattern than for work and education trips. This Exhibit shows in general, in each user group, that daily trip rates from the other cities' survey are lower than Metro Toronto, while the mail-out daily trip rates are usually the highest of all | .! | m= | TRANSPORTATION LIMITATION (USER GROUPS) ™®annot Use Public Transportation, Must se Special Vehicle Pin Cannot Use Public | ie ie But td an Be Driven _Can Use Public _ransportation ith Difficulty ~ an Use Public wet ansportation With No Difficulty __otal Disabled Ve] EXEIBIT VI-2 Work and Education All Other Total Work and Education All Other Total Work and Education All Other Lotad Work and Education All Other LoOteae Work and Education All Other Toual EXISTING DAILY TRIPS PER HANDICAPPED PERSON! TRIP PURPOSES SURVEY Metro, Other 1 D Toronto Cities ail-Out 0. 36 0.47 0733 0.54 0.42 0.50 0.48 0.43 0.94 1.02 OF. 1.44 0.59 0.48 0.42 Led 1.0L 169 O55 0.74 0.67 O97 1.24 Lal Again, it is to be noted that the Metro Toronto and other cities' survey respondents were assigned to user groups based on the assignment procedure outlined above. “2. These results were reported earlier in Table V-22, but incorporate an extra 30 = questionnaire responses primarily in the less severely disabled category. Therefore, the weighted average total in this exhibit (1.59) is slightly higher than in ““ Table V-22 (1.56). Compared to the two most severe categories of Table V-22 these trip rates are _. somewhat high, due primarily to the category assignment procedure outlined in the footnote of the previous page. w vehicle’, rather than "must use special vehicle"; The category is literally ''do use special it is the universe of people who would be the market for a special vehicle service. Peat, Marwick and Partners three surveys. The difference between Metro Toronto and the other cities within the same user groups is probably due to the tendency for a lower trip rate in cities smaller than Toronto for the general popu- lation. The higher trip rate for the mail-out is likely influenced by the high percentage of Workmen's Compensation beneficiaries who might be expected to be more active and travel-oriented than the general disabled population. In Chapter V, the observation was made that the user group trip rates seem to decrease as the disability increases in severity, although the tendency was less marked than one might have expected. The few specific inconsistencies to this general trend shown in Exhibit VI-2 indicate the roughness of the survey data. In assessing the survey results, it is to be emphasized that while specific trip rates for specific user groups are to be interpreted with caution, the general trip rate information seems quite altace The Metro Toronto survey is used throughout the rest of the chapter when developing demand estimates for Toronto. The other cities' survey is used to generate demand estimates for other urbanized areas in Ontario. The mail-out results are used to provide a rough cross- check to the interpretation of the other two sets of survey results. 2. The Ottawa-Carleton survey was compared to the other cities' survey. They indicated an existing daily trip rate of .7 from a sample of 900 respondents. While this rate is somewhat lower than the other cities’ survey results in this study, they can be explained by the Ottawa-Carleton sample composition and questionnaire return. First, the sample tended to include a high percentage of people in insti- tutions who are not very mobile; second, there were a large number of people (about one-third of the sample) who did not complete the trip information questions, but were included in the compilation of the average existing trip rate. EXHIBIT VI-3 MARKET SHARE OF EACH TRANSPORTATION MODE BY TRANSPORTATION LIMITATION TRANSPORTATION _ LIMITATION Rege Use Public miransportation, Must Use Special Vehicle i bes Use Public =)}ransportation, But Can Be Driven —“an Use Public ransportation "With Difficulty ad Can Use Public ransportation ewith No Difficulty mead Ju sjotal Disabled —s % . | SURVEY : MARKET SHARE (2%) Auto Auto Special ae Driver Passenger Subwa iheistal Vehicle Metro Toronto 6 20 8 sik 100 Other | Cities 2 29 18 a7 100 Mail-Out 10 25 ~ 55 100 Metro Toronto 8 a7 19 q 100 Other Cities 9 45 8 - 100 Mail-Out 42 28 4 2 100 23 2 D2 - 100 4 45 25 100 ae ZS 35 - 100 Toronto 26 11 41 - 100 Other Cities 29 20 28 4 100 Mail-Out 38 18 39 it 100 Toronto 3 100 Other Cities | " dh 100 Mail Out ye 2 | 100 Again, it is mentioned that the Metro Toronto and Other Cities Survey respondents were assigned to user groups based on survey responses, rather than directly responding to a particular set of questions. = Peat, Marwick and Partners EXHIBIT VI-4 TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS RELATED TO USER GROUP USER GROUP , Those who cannot Those “74 cannot Those who can use its who can nae use public transport- use public transport- public transportation ublic transpor tati TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ation , must ra ation, but can drive with difficulty ‘with no difficulty sh special vehicle or be driven IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SYSTEM 1. TRAINING PROGRAM a) for physically handicapped b) better promoting c) for public transportation personnel a d) for taxi drivers 4 2.MINOR OPERATIONAL CHANGES a) new fixed routes b) more bus shelters c) assist personnel d) interior vehicle changes 19K [DK [><] [DK [DK >< I>< e) better information systems f) shorten walking distances 3.MAJOR OPERATIONAL CHANGES x< >< |< a) new vehicles with lower steps X > 4 b) wheelchair loading devices X xX x c) escalators at all subways x x d) elevators at all subways 4 Xx 4. USE OF OFF- PEAK EXTRA BUSES Xx AND DIAL- A - BUSES NEW TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1. TAXI- TYPE SERVICE xyY> 2. DOOR TO DOOR SPECIAL VAN SERVICE ey Ga es Ok 3, EXPANDED DOOR TO DOOR SERVICE PROVISION OF DIRECT SUBSIDIES |. SUBSIDIZE FARES THROUGH OPERATORS 2.SUBSIDIZE FARES THROUGH INDIVIDUALS 3.SUBSIDIZE FARES THROUGH ORGANIZATIONS 4. SUBSIDIZE PURCHASE OF ADAPTED AUTOMOBILES 1. Since these people have no transportation problems, transportation options are not developed particularly for this group. 2. X denotes the transportation improvement that can benefit the user group specified 3. Y denotes alternative options of new transportation services that are limited to those who cannot use public transportation. VI-5 User Group Market Share The results of each survey have been tabulated by market share of each mode of transportation, shown in Exhibit VI-3. This exhibit shows the dominant modes for each user group - taxi, auto passenger, and special vehicle for the most severely disabled, and greater use of public transit and auto as driver for the less severely disabled. The survey results also show that disabled people do not fit neatly into transportation limitation categories. For example, those who responded in the mail-out survey that they must use a special vehicle also travelled by bus, taxi, and auto. Some of these people probably referred to a special taxi service (such as for schoolchildren) or specially adapted cars as "special vehicles'', while others put themselves in this category simply because they preferred to travel by special vehicle. In the Metro Toronto and other cities' surveys, many people who travel by special vehicle also use other transportation modes. DEFINITION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS A list has been compiled consisting of possible new and improved services for each disabled user group. These transportation options are related on Exhibit VI-4 to the three user groups with trans- portation problems, and are further spelled out below: A. Improvements to Existing Services 1. Training Programs: (a) Institute training program designed to help physically handicapped use existing public transportation and taxi systems. (b) Program to market existing public trans- portation system for the disabled. (c) Train public transportation personnel in aiding and serving the physically handi- capped. (d) Train taxi drivers (perhaps designated taxi company fleets) on how to handle physically handicapped passengers (not always feasible in larger cities where taxi fleets are less stable). 2. Minor Operational Changes in Public Transportation Systems: (a) Designate new fixed route service (possibly in off-peak) for physically handicapped. This could be accomplished by denoting all concentrations of physically handicapped, and providing doorstep transit service to the establishment, rather than within the 1,000 feet usually specified as a transit catchment area. (b) Provide more bus shelters, and possibly consider heating shelters (as some physically handicapped are quite susceptible to changes in temperature due to poor circulation). This improvement, as others, would mean an improved system not just ‘for the physically handicapped, but for the population as a whole. As such, the costs of such a program could not be totally attribu- table to an improvement for the physically handicapped. (c) Provide physical assist personnel to help the physically handicapped both in information transfer and in boarding and exiting vehicles. This could only be implemented in areas where a large concentration of potential physically handicapped passengers would gather, such as near sheltered workshops. In other cases, the transit operator himself would have to assist disabled people in boarding. Changes of this type have implications in existing labour agreements. (d) Provide minor interior vehicle changes and station changes, such as improved seating (possibly some designated seats for the phys- ically handicapped), and extra handrails. (e) Provide better information systems to overcome the uncertainty many physically handicapped and elderly experience in the use of the public trans- portation system. (This-improvement may be a dupli- cation of the improvement mentioned in Option 1(b), but is included in this section because it was included in the minor operational improvement section of the survey). (£) Shorten walking distances at bus or subway stations (such as providing designated reserved parking at subway stations). Major Operational Changes in Public Transportation Systems: (a) New vehicle design to provide lower steps at vehicle entry and exit points. (b) New vehicle design or modifications to existing vehicles to provide wheelchair access. (c) Provision of escalators at all subway stations. (d) Provision of elevators at all subway stations. Use of Off-Peak Extra Buses and Dial-a-Buses for Group Trips. Be Provision of New Transportation Services i Establish new taxi-like fleet or contract out to existing taxi companies a door-to-door taxi service for the physically handicapped: (a) Peak-hour service. (b) Off-peak hour service. (c) All-day service. VI-7 VI-8 C. Pi Establish a door-to-door pre-booked or demand-responsive service, using 5-13 passenger converted vans essentially for the disabled in wheelchairs and their companions: (a) Peak-hour service. (b) Off-peak hour service. (c) All-day service. a. Establish a door-to-door pre-booked or demand- responsive service using 5-13 passenger converted vans and possibly a few larger vehicles (e.g. a minibus vehicle which normally accommodates 15-25 persons, but when modified to allow wheel- chair entry, could accommodate 12-15 persons). This service wouid be for both wheelchair-bound and walking handicapped and their companions, and could be restricted to those who cannot use public transit, or include those who can use it with difficulty: (a) Peak-hour service. (b) Off-peak hour service. (c) All-day service. Direct Subsidization to Defray Costs of Existing and Future Services l. Subsidize fare levels through existing operators: (a) Taxi fares. (b) Special vehicle fare. Zs Payment of increased transportation funds directly to physically handicapped individuals. a Payment of transportation funds to organizations representing the physically handicapped for the provision of transportation services: (a) Non-profit organizations representing handi- capped individuals, such as CNIB, Canadian Hearing Society, etc. (b) Non-profit organizations which are chiefly identified with raising funds for organizations, such as the United Appeal. ~APAQnNs 10 BNQ BYI 02 epea 2q 2U8sm Jey. slUsMaAcCIdmy 10; sUCT saBSns 32420 Aue saty nok og | ial (74914 NI ALTE) isnq pue Aenqns Aq yaan iad ayom nok PIMOM sdt32 [euOyiyppe Auew moy ‘apeu aian SJUsUIZACIGa, asaya 3] : su0;3829 Avaqns [[® 38 91038AaT3 °¢ S00} 2878 Aeaqns [[@ 2 £102"] 82 se-uAnog =) sucjleqys Avagns 11® 38 8203e] B8a—dp “¢ SAJBYITIIYA 30J- B2}AIP Yuyproy °2 Sasng vo sd22% Jamn4 Jurdiodwy Wravduy WULJIodsy TLV JV 30N IeyRawos Aray “nok ©2 Juviioday T1y Je ION 20 *jUPII0dw] IeYRswOS ‘2087 268s) Azaq ey 05) SUpeBi LO) Oy JU YIT® [333 HOA Lay2eUNA BTEBe Ow II eD Bea YG eis) YyIT eg GO;3¥a129q pus einszey Seeuteng [e00sieg pus Suyddogg Boy IFONpyA oR (Fano1a wi ILTem) jsesodind yeya 103 agra nok PIMOA 4danH 190d sdzzz TRUOTITppe Auer moy *axez acasaid 242 38 a1 QUT yeas 818A 1UBIIOdmy Isom seA 3793 nok Yeya arza108 2q2 31 *ONIMOTIO’ FHL ASY C31IIT3S 46 BO Le AI (4120 yrundéeg) @ Gia S20) YIT PCy DOTITIIIeg pus sansyey Sceryeng [vucsisg pee Suyddoug Boy IGsepy HOR (FANDI4 RI ALBA) jeasodind ButAo}lyo3 @y2 203 ANTI NOA PINOA xIAA Add Ssdp 33 1evor iy} ppe furw moy ‘dy32 39d Qo'7s jo e103 © de arqei yeas a29A 1UEIIOdw} Isom SseA 377} MOA YENI er7TaI2BB 9112 31 SAIAOTVOL TH NSV GALITTHS oy BO CO 41 (®) (P) (Pp) (2) C4PO1a KE GLINS) CSNY Pw AU AgN< ke yeeR sed eyem HWA PIMOM Bd)47 [CUOFITPPE AULW ROY *ApPLM d30M Sau AVIA 3594) BY Bias SIE | €-97 [uae | Pe €-Sz Bee: [ia [take ete L] 7-97 [] I-97 [jee [Je rae wut jicdsy Juwyioduy JUFJioday TIV J¥ 20g Jeynsog pet yy z-8 P 4 sdoils sng ue sivos aioy "9 Z-L Zz S402] 04s JaoW “5 sktaqns puv sasnq Uy Sreq-qeis [er;3200 aro “9 $25NqQ JO si]{xa pue sajuel2uea de sTyer puey =€ paddrorpuey Ate dtshkyd 303 SArTAqnS pug sasnq uo sieas JezIads a d Sa[npayrs pue sdoie ay pus @eist{s voy ei0dsuel3 2t1qnd FY2 INoge uoyIemIOjUZ 19330g cm | “nok 02 JurjI10du] Itv 38 2ON 10 *J10ds] IeFYyAzeog “Juejacdsy A190, sj yowe [aaj nok 3241394A oe [122 esvetd °IS}T Fy peer | sy -suaisis A@AQnS aya Pus *1833901368 ‘eng oy3 Buyaeidey jo sien 3° 19q@enu & |1e a12y) 2ae) yr] C34 Bo} IwSI59y pur dsansy}aq Ssautsng [eucsiog pus Susddoys a ——— ee voy eonpy — 420K (FANIIA KI ALIYA) (Sesodand Buynoy {03 @y2 10x aye. NOK P[NoA Haan 12d sdt313 TeUCTITppe Auwa moy ‘dyj12 aad o¢-¢ jo 818} & IF aTQeiyteas @18A YEVIICdmy 250m BBA 2189 MOK IBY a2;A108 ay2 31 *SMLAOTIOS BBL ASV CALITIIS 94 YO Se al (P)zT (2)t (@ZT°d OL OD (P)ZT"O OL cof CJ STWV4 1XV1 Wancl = -9 STIJIAIA CINOISIG AT1YID3dS BLIA 391AWaS HOOG-O1-4%00d 1s09 waN01 ¥ “¢ WA1SAS AVMENS ZHI KI SINDOAOMENI “? WAISAS SME 3HI SI SINDGACISN “¢ ASVSSA7GN SI INDGAOGI Ty1939ds o8 St STIISOKOLAV mI (STOMLIDD GXVH INI) LxGHaINdA TWI3adS WOi S3Ivu azDnam = *T : éS@3HLO ANV JUSHL Fav (RH EVD GHVR) jTeae212 03 nok 203 18T swe 2} eyeO 03 3URPUOCERT 38GB Sq PTRon e2];4196 uF Slusmsaciésy; BupAo[{o} ay? 3° PTs IAA he wa Pay Se ah ZZ i t i | G 8 8©6ltal ee .* .. - a (4) (®)71 (4) VI-9 (c) Governmental agencies serving the physically handicapped, such as the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Health and Education. Cost-sharing with physically handicapped individuals for driver training, auto purchase, and the provision of hand controls or other devices making it possible for the physically handicapped to drive their own vehicles. Future Trip Rates On both the Metro Toronto and other cities' surveys, questions dealing with future trip behaviour were asked. in Exhibit VI-5, first prompted the respondent to select a transportation option which best applied, and then asked the respondent to estimate future trip behaviour (by trip purpose for all new service options) at various fare levels. trips that would be taken under the following circumstances: A. Improvements to Existing Systems "improvements in the bus system' - 12(a) and 12(d) "improvements in the subway system" - 12(a) and 12(d) improvements that the respondent felt important among the following: "better information systems, special seats for the handicapped, handrails, vertical grab-bars, and shelters and seats at bus stops'' (termed here as minor operational changes - 14(a) and 14(b) improvements that the respondent felt important among the following: "lower steps on buses, loading device for wheelchairs, subway elevators and esca- lators'' (termed here as major operational changes) - 14(c) and 14(d). These questions, shown The questions referred to the number of additional Sieuzjieg pue yoTMreW ‘Qeag *stsA[eue jo sasodind ayj 103 peuTquos useq sAey (,,A3[NOFJJIP ou,, Butpnyout) sdnoz3 zasn anoj [1® ,,uoTjJeIIodsue1zyl 29T][qng ut sosuey) [Teuotjeisedg Jofey,, pue ‘,,uotzej10dsueszy 2FIQNd UT sesueyD TeuoTje1edQ 1o0UTy,, *,weqsks Aeaqns 03 sjueweAoidwy,, ‘,waqshs sng 03 SjueweAcCIduy,, suotzdo uote jI0dsuelz3 eyz og ‘¢ ‘uotjdo owes ey} utTYy3IM Tenbe st dnozZ aasn yore AtoZ utes juooied ay ‘snyL ~peutqmoo arom wAIINOFFFTA YITA uoTIeQI1odsueszy 2F1GNd esn ueg,, pue “,®T2FY@A TeTOeds asn jou op ang ‘uotjzej10dsueaz DT[qng asn qouue),, sdnoi3 tasn ayj ‘aotaras 100p-0}-i100p pepuedxe pue aotaizas odfj-1xeq jo Sut}sfsuood suoqzdo uotqze3A10dsuejzq ey2 107 ‘7 “e194 pesn Sf SKaAIns ,Sa}}]TO 19YyR0 pue OQUOIO]L o1RAW Aojy Butpiom uot woTsZTIUepy dnoiZ iasn asqoeid aiom Whe Wye >S990N | vet | oot | ott | ver | vet | o9-t 6 zef ST n€ 6 ze 12a Vete L.| ore, (si6-t 1) tere | az y HE a8 6 cO*T 8c°T 06°0 Olt 8crT yam! OL | Il 9f ol Te CIT 18°0 T8°0 TET Pe S®TITQ | ojUoI0L | “rome | “essex | oaoAOL SPFITO | Ojuodoy | 00°7$ O] O€ @ | 00°zS O]o0e wD | poe 2 | 00°2s o[>oe & | 00'zs & [0c OD] 00'-zs o] 20e Of eaeu Atal sanang 12430 O12 aN 12430 ore 0130 22430 0132, | S8TIT) 1940 BXliplo) OJUOIOL O12aW | S98T3TO 19490 ORUOIOL C1aW | pue juaseig ajei dtiq aanjng ufed % aje1 dt1q Jueseig PeTqestd [eI0L eje1 dta3q eanjng uztey % AA[NIFIFTP YITA uote j10dsuel13 2F1Iqnd asn ue9 aje1 djti3 Juaseag 86°0 aqer dtaq 9anjny St ute) % eTIFYyea TeToods esn JOU op 3ng Sg'o aqei “uotjej1odsue1zj dya3 Quese1g Jottqnd asn jouue9 aqe1 dtiq aanjng uyed % aqei dt13 juasezg al 2Fyea Tetoads asg I dnoay iesg uoT 3&7 1Todsueiy, uotjeJiodsueiy sng OL S80TFAIIg 100g-09-100q geiej TxXe] I9MO7] sueA [Tews YIM 2T1qNd ut se8uey) 2T19Nd uy sasueyy pepuedxg adTAIes adh] -Ixe] BITAIIS 100G-0}3-100g Teuotje1edg soley Teuotje1ady Aout} s.ueweaocadmy LISNVAL ONILSIXA OL SLNANSAOWdWI ' SAOTAYTS NOILVLYOdSNVUL MAN dhOwS YASN AW SNOIIdO NOILVINOdSNVUL YOd Salva dIUl TaNLNA GNY INSAYd ee ee Pop ek ie i a , . =| a| | ol eo ' | #8 VI-10 B. New Transportation Services - ''a lower cost door-to-door service with specially designed vehicles" at fare levels of 30c¢ and $2700" =" 12(Cay, FL2Cb) 7s 120) - "lower taxi fares" at 30¢c and $2.00 fare levels = 12 (a) SIZED ie eet cy The present and future trip rates for each of the transporta- tion options specified in the questionnaire are shown in Exhibit VI-6. Each option is roughly parallel to the transportation options listed in Exhibit VI-4. The blank spaces in the tables represent groups for whom the options are not directly intended. The main observations on the results of this exhibit are: 1s There is about a 3 to 1 ratio of future trip increases indicated for the 30¢ fare, as opposed to the $2.00 fare for the new service options. Qe There is a significantly lower trip increase proj- ection (6% to 19%) for public transit improvements even for "major'' improvements. ae There is some increase in trips projected for 'major" as opposed to "minor'' improvements in public transit but the difference is possibly less than might be expected. 4. The lowest relative increase projected was for sub- way improvements. Future Market Share Future market share has been determined, using survey responses to future trip behaviour questions. The assumption has been made that any future trips projected by the respondent due to the introduction of Si9ujieq pue yoTMIeW ‘ eag “peutqmos sdnoi3 iasn 30143 IT? 40F peqe[Nd{eo o1am , wa3zsks uoFzejiodsuerzy It][qng eyQ ut sazuey) [euot e1edg azofew,, uot3do uoyzze310dsuer3 942 OJ saieys JYayxIeW “|{ :[eIOL eT°TYeA [eyoods 7xe} Aeaqns snq ieZuessed ojne PeTqesta AeAzIp ojne TBIOL :[TeIOL eT°Tyea [epoods yxeq Aeaqns snq iesuessed ojne IsATIp o3ne AVINIFIFIP YIFM uo} ej10dsuesq 2F1qnd asn ue :T BIOL 212; yea TeToads }xeq Aeaqns snq laZuessed ojne AeATIp ojne aTOT Yaa Tezoeds asn jou op 3nq uoTjeIIJodsuelQq 2t1Gnd asn jouueg OOT Oot :lTeqoL Be 847 BLITYyeA [eT ToIeds | T€ 92 Txeq : = 2 Aeaqns | Z 9 snq 81 SI ie3uessed ojne aToTyea 9 ¢ JeAyIp one Tetoeds assy (1) (1) Sepon S9TQT9 oJU0IOL dnoiy ies 13430 ol aW JFsueqy OTT qng UT sa3uey9 euotzetrsedg azofey eran | CauozeL | se¥s¥o" | oauoxOL | Fersto | OFuozr [TOOLS OL SOE DT 00 TE OL SOE Dy 13430 O129n 19420 O12 OW 12430 OTI9PW ff seTITD T8qID | OJUOIOL OT7Ey | atsueqry ITTQnd f Weasds Aeaqns 343 WezsAs sng 343 89TAIV§ 100g-03-100q ur sasuey9 03 sjueweaoidmy 03 sjuawanoaduy pepuedxg [Buotjeiadg szoutTyW sueA TTPWS YITM @ITAIIS 1009 -07- a00q LISNVUL ONTILSIXA OL SINSNFAOYdHI SAOIAYAS NOTLVLYOdSNVUL MAN dNO¥s YASn AaNVY NOTLdO NOILVLYOdSNVUL A@ FYVHS LAaWAWA JMNLNA £-IA LI@IHXg ™ 2) & ie rh om) om wre | VI-11 a new service (or an improved level of an existing service) would be carried by that new or improved service. Therefore, the market share of the mode of the new or improved service will increase accordingly. The future market shares calculated are shown in Exhibit VI-7, based on the projected trip increases shown in Exhibit VI-6. Exhibit VI-7 can be compared with Exhibit VI-3 - which shows the existing market share of each mode. As an example of the change in market share, it was calculated that the introduction of door-to-door small van service at 30¢ would increase the market share for special vehicles from 31% to 47% (Metro Toronto) and 36% to 53% (other cities). DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS This section of the chapter details the methodology used to calculate preliminary demand estimates for each of the proposed trans- portation options. Present and future trip rates were presented in Exhibit VI-6 for each user group and transportation option combination. For some transportation options trip rates have been developed at two different future fare levels, to obtain some measure of price sensitivity. As a result of the introduction of each transportation option at different fare levels, it is assumed that all existing and additional trips in that mode would be served by the new transportation option. Estimates of the future market share are detailed in Exhibit VI-7. When TRANSPORTATION \ GEOGRAPHIC | “Improvements To | All Physically Handi- Total Surveyed sus System" | capped who either Cities: H , cannot use public ! Pm, | transportation or Other Cities ae a3 Te | who use it now Toronto 124 67 149 2 117 59 128 \ | with difficulty ‘7? | Physically Handi- Other Cities 38 104 | 144 —= capped who now use Toronto 36 167 | 228 public transporta- 36 167 228 | tion with no f | difficulty SS aS SS SS aS Saas) [acacsnensssssnssseess mprovements To | 2a Physically Handi- Toronto 10.3 60 30 47 WR ubway System™ capped who either 4.4 77 23 40 | cannot use public | | | transportation or i who use it now (1) with difficulty = | Physically Handi- Toronto 82 104 | capped who now use 82 | 104 =e public transporta- tion with no | difficulty | mn 6255 Sor eae eT Sees ee ee | Minor Operational All Physically Handi- Other Cities ons 7 49 52 Changes In capped who either Toronto 22nd 5 96 101 iblic cannot use public 9.2 3 82 84 cansportation , transportation or i == | who use it now (1) ' ; with difficulty | = — | Physically Handi- Other Cities 2.7 6 104 111 | capped who now use Toronto 54.0 4 249 258 public transporta- Ta07 4 249 260 nome | tion with no | | difficulty = SS SS Se Ee ee a | jor Operational All Physically Handi- Other Cities WA) 16 49 56 anges In capped who either Toronto Pas ests) ES 96 109 qeemidlic cannot use public 9.9 ll 82 91 | Transportation transportation or | who use it now Qa) —_ with difficulty Physically Handi- Other Cities 3.0 15 104 120 — capped who now use Toronto 58.3 12 249 278 public transporta- 14.9 13 249 281 tion with no difficulty cs ue eS aS SS Sea Lissa - iI These figures are slightly at variance with the final tally of handicapped people in each severerity group shown in Exhibit II-1. om=, This combination of user groups include the following: "Those who cannot use public transportation, must use special vehicle", "Those who cannot | use public transportation, but can be driven", and "Those who use public transportation with difficulty". x This population estimate uses the revised Metro Toronto estimates referred to in Exhibit II-1. 4, This population estimate refers to the original lower estimates of Metro Toronto as per Exhibit II-1. _ Peat, Marwick and Partners a al Ss EXHIBIT VI-8 DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SERVICES ————— ee SEALS TING SERVICES PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED POPULATI epee % INCREASE EXISTING FUTURE ANNUAL IN TRANSIT ANNUAL TRIPS BY |: TRIPS BY TRIPS (NOT PHYSICALLY HANDI- PHYSICALLY TOTAL TRIPS) CAPPED PERSON HANDICAPPED PERSON OPTION USER GROUP AREA VI-12 these market share percentages are applied to the number of daily trips by user group described above, estimates of the future total daily trips by each new option are obtained. These figures become the preliminary demand estimates for cost analysis. Improvements to Existing Systems Exhibit VI-8 shows the summary demand estimates for the trans- portation options which involve improvements in the existing public transit system. This exhibit shows the number of physically handicapped persons affected by each option, the existing and future daily trip estimates, and existing and future annual trips by person. A 300-day year is used to be consistent with normal transit analysis. It should be noted that the percent increase is the increase in trips in public transit and not increase over the total trips for all modes as portrayed in Exhibit VI-6. It should be noted again that the four separate questions (shown in Exhibit VI-5) differ in the method in which they were asked and therefore the results for each question will differ in the validity which they should be interpreted. Exhibit VI-8 shows that the projected future daily trips vary according to transportation (and survey question), user group, and survey. These variations are discussed below. VI-13 Variation by Transportation Option The greatest increases in daily trips occur for the trans- portation option 'Improvements to Bus System''. This can possibly be explained by the ambiguity of this option which could have meant to Metro Toronto respondents some kind of special bus service. When the respondents were asked how many additional trips would be taken if specific changes they had considered important (from a list presented to them) were implemented, much lower increases were recorded. ''Major'"' operational changes had a relatively greater impact than "minor" changes, but the total anticipated increase on an across-the-board basis was relatively low. Variation by User Group Without exception, the largest increases occur for the dis- abled who have transportation problems (those who either cannot use public transportation at present, or who use it now with difficulty) as opposed to those who can use the public transit system with no difficulty. This result is to be expected, but it is also significant that improvements in the public transit system will generate increased trips by people who are experiencing no difficulty in using the system at present. The latter group represents a control group, in effect. In the more vague "improvements to bus/subway system" the handicapped with VI-14 transportation difficulties showed a much higher relative expected travel than those experiencing no difficulty. However, when specific improvements were listed, the future trip rates between the two groups was very much the same. This would seem to indicate, when faced with the specific, practical changes, the disabled respondent did not anti- cipate greatly increased travel by transit. Variation by Survey (Metro Toronto vs. Other Cities) Generally, the increase in future trips is relatively constant between Metro Toronto and other cities. However, one significant exception to this trend occurs for the transportation option ‘Improvements to Bus System" for the user groups "All Physically Handicapped Who Either Cannot Use Public Transportation or Who Use it Now With Difficulty", where the Metro Toronto increase is twice that for the other cities. One possible explanation for this is a greater general dependence in Toronto on public transit than in other cities, and a correspondingly greater desire by the disabled to use public transit in Toronto. Comparison of Annual Trips by Physically Handicapped Person to Ontario Passenger Per Capita Data? Existing data across Ontario indicates that the population as a whole takes about 160 trips per capita per annum by public trans- portation in Metro Toronto, and between 30-80 trips per capita per annum by public transportation in other urban areas. Se eee ee 3. Supplied by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications. SleujIeg pue Yo mmAzey_ ‘}eag “T-II FQ UXA UF OFUOTOL O1}R9W UT peTqesTp Jo sajewT Sse A9MOT 03 SAazear ajeWTISe uoTWeI[Ndog °7 “T-II JqTYXa UT seinsTy O1}0W pesTASI 9Y} 02 SAazor ajzeWTISe UoTIeI[Ndog ‘T “AVINOFJFJTA YIFM AF esp ATuO ueo ojuU0IOJ, oym to fuotjejAodsuea], OT[qng esq JouURD OYyM 3Jnq SUeATIG eq URD OYM VSOUTL [Ly 10J SOTITO 19470 - 99TAIVS 100G-0}-100q adéj],-Txe], *uotTjejAodsueazl 9T[qGng e88p JouURD oVUO0IO yng USATIG 9q UPD OUM [Vy 10F SETITD 19470 - 80TAI2S 1A00G-04-100q 3dh]-Txe] “AV[NOTFFTA YITM oUOIOL 3I esq ATuQ ueg AO uot eAAOdsuPAl DTTGNd eS JouueD oYyM VssoyL [Ly 10F S8TITO 19470 - ddTAIVS eTOTYaA [eToOedS 100G-03-100G ‘uot zeqizodsuelz oVUOIOL OTTGNg esM JouueD OUM VSOUL [[y 10F S8TITO 19470 - B9dTAIIS 9TOTYeA TeTIeds 1A00qG-0}3-100g ojUOoIO], "9TOTYaA TeToeds osq ASNW OYM esSoYyy AOFZ S28TITD 1A9YI0 - BdTAIES STOTYeA TetToeds 100G-03-100qG szet 00°7$ ® | PAPA LOE OD eoay otyde130059 uotjdg uotjez10dsueirj eseeIDUI x VsePoIOUL ¥ Ajtteqd uotje[ndog SUTISTXY PeTqestq SHOTAWAS NOILVIMOdSNVYL MEN YOA SALVWILSA ANYWaC S=-TA TTGTHXT |. iy ’ : A 4 e : ‘ , e: : : — VI-15 The existing travel behaviour evidenced in Exhibit VI-8 shows reasonable results when compared to Ontario per capita trip rates for public transit. The possible exception would be in Metro Toronto for those who now use public transportation with no difficulty, where the existing annual trip by physically handicapped person varies from 160- 250 trips per year, or somewhat above the Ontario passenger per capita data. This can be explained by the sample population characteristics of relatively older and poorer people who have a greater dependence on public transportation than the general Toronto population. This also applies to the Other Cities existing annual trips per physically handicapped person, which for the user group "those who use public transportation with no difficulty" varies from 50-100 trips per year. New Transportation Services Exhibit VI-9 shows the existing trips for the transportation options which involve new transportation services. This exhibit shows the number of physically handicapped persons affected by each option, existing daily trip estimates, and percentage increases in the mode of the new service at 30¢ and $2.00 fares. For the purposes of analysis, the number of disabled who must use a special vehicle has been separated from the total of those who cannot use public transit. To do this, we used the percentage of people who classified themselves this way in response to the direct question in the mail-out survey (see Exhibit VI-1). EXHIBIT VI-10 VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR NEW TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Taxi-Type Service Cannot Use P.T. Or Use With RTA N Special Van Service - Cannot Use P.T. Or Use With Taxi-Type Service - Cannot Use P.T. Special Van Service Cannot Use P.T. Door-to-Door Special Van Service @ 30¢ irnia People Served 1 570 L210 Daily Demand 353 646 Vehicles Required 15 28 Vehicle Hours 114 210 Vehicle Mileage 2,280 4,200 ngston People Served 730 175 Daily Demand 452 988 Vehicles Required iS) 43 Vehicle Hours 148 326 Vehicle Mileage 2,960 6,520 mmnins People Served 280 810 Daily Demand 231 463 ' Vehicles Required 7 21 Vehicle Hours 57 154 Vehicle Mileage 1,150 3,080 ndsor People Serve 2,300 5,600 Daily Demand 1,426 3,20 Vehicles Required 59 138 Vehicle Hours 8,960 24,430 ‘ Vehicle Mileage under Bay People Serve 1,450 2,940 , Daily Demand 899 15710 Vehicles Required eW/ ip! Vehicle Hours 284 544 : Vehicle Mileage 5,680 10, 880 conto People Served 20,490 57,620 Daily Demand? 12,479 36,450 Vehicles Required 646 1,230 Vehicle Hours 5,350 14,980 : Vehicle Mileage 339,900 94,080 275,200 _ronto People Served 32,710 12,180 25,020 Daily Demand 17,300 7,059 10,840 Vehicles Required 1,112 384 741 Vehicle Hours 7,148 3,036 4,644 Vehicle Mileage 126,120 53,040 81,420 s See Exhibit II-1 for exact population estimates reported. There is some very small (and insignificant) variance from these figures due to adjustments made to them as a result of late returns from survey. Daily demand id existing plus additional trips if the service is to be provided. This population estimate refers to the revised Metro figure. This population estimate refers to the lower Metro estimate. Peat, Marwick and Partners VI-16 In all cases, Exhibit VI-9 shows that the proposed fare has a significant impact on future trips, as all 30¢ options have a greater increase than $2.00 options. Vehicle Estimates for New Transportation Services Exhibit VI-10 shows estimates for existing and additional demand combined for all new transportation services for each urban area surveyed. This exhibit shows the number of physically handicapped persons affected by each option, the future daily demand estimates, vehicles required, vehicle hours, and mileage. The number of vehicles required varies from 1,230 taxi-type vehicles (door-to-door taxi service for all those who cannot use public transit or have some difficulty with it at 30¢c in Metro Toronto) to two special vehicles in Timmins to serve those who need a special vehicle. The vehicle requirements, hours, and mileage are calculated in two categories: pre-booked (work and education) and demand-responsive (all other trip purposes). Since the pre-booked trips tend to occur at the same time, the vehicle requirements are higher and thus dictate the total number of vehicles which are required. In order to calculate the vehicle requirements, various assumptions about vehicle loading, hours of service, and period of ser- vice had to be made. These assumptions are listed below, and are based on discussions with operators and users of existing services. VI-17 Hours of Service - work and education: 4 hours per day (7 - 9 a.m., 4 - 6 p.m.) - all other trip purposes: 14 hours per day (all other than peak from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m.) - all day: 18 hours per day (i.e. sum of peak and off-peak service. Vehicle Capacity (Maximum - taxi: 3 passengers per vehicle - special petieles ts: - small van: 7 passengers per vehicle - converted dial-a-bus: 15 passengers per vehicle. Circuit Time (Per Vehicle Trip in Minutes)> Type of Service Metro Toronto Other Cities Work and Education Trips - Taxi 1D 60 All Other Trip Purposes - Taxi 45 30 All Day - Taxi 60 45 Work and Education Trips - Small Van 90 te All Other Trip Purposes - Small Van 60 45 All Day - Small Van The 60 Work and Education Trips - Dial-a-Bus 90 ips) All Other Trip Purposes - Dial-a-Bus 60 45 All Day - Dial-a-Bus 75 60 The dial-a-bus is a larger type of special vehicle that can accommodate wheelchairs, but is not used in estimating vehicle requirements or costs. Discussions with operators of various services have shown that these estimates are reasonable. For costing purposes, we are using these average levels of service. It would be appropriate in relation to a specific service proposal in a particular city, to test the effects of lower and higher levels of service. VI-18 Vehicle Loading (Average Number of Passengers Per Vehicle Per Cycle) Type of Service Metro Toronto Other Cities Work and Education Trips - Taxi All Other Trip Purposes - Taxi All Day - Taxi Work and Education Trips - Small Van All Other Trip Purposes - Small Van All Day - Small Van Work and Education Trips - Dial-a-Bus All Other Trip Purposes - Dial-a-Bus All Day - Dial-a-Bus ° e Wh WM NM LON ND bo e (eS, SS Pm eo hem) (om (8) | WN WNN WN DN LY OU Ul OO © OM Average Speed (Miles Per Hour) Type of Service Metro Toronto Other Cities Work and Education Trips - Taxi 15 20 All Other Trip Purposes - Taxi 20 20 All Day - Taxi 20 20 Work and Education Trips - Small Van 15 20 All Other Trip Purposes - Small Van 20 20 All Day - Small Van 20 20 Work and Education Trips - Dial-a-Bus 15 20 All Other Trip Purposes - Dial-a-Bus 20 20 All Day - Dial-a-Bus 20 20 Using the demand estimates and assumptions detailed above, the number of vehicles required, system hours, and system mileage can be calculated. The formulae used in these calculations are listed below: Number of = (Demand) x (Circuit Time in Hours) Vehicles Required (Hours of Service) x (Vehicle Loading) ti Vehicle Hours (Hours of Service) x (Number of Vehicles of Operation Required) System Mileage I (Average Speed) x (Vehicle Hours of Operation) EXHIBIT VI-11 URBAN ONTARIO DAILY DEMAND ESTIMATES Estimated Future Annual Trips Per Disabled Person @ 30¢ Population Served NEW TRANSPORTATION SERVICES . Door-to-Door Special Vehicle Service - for those who Must Use Special Vehicle. Door-to-Door Special Vehicle Service - for All those who Cannot Use Public Transportation Door-to-Door Special Vehicle Service - for All those who Cannot Use Public Transporta- tion or Can Only Use it with Difficulty. Taxi-Type Door-to-Door Service for All who Can be Driven but Cannot Use Public Transportation Taxi-Type Door-to-Door Service for All Those who Can be Driven but who Cannot Use Public Trans- portation, or who Can Only Use it with Difficulty IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS Improvements to Bus System: 201, 35001) as ee 334,700 (55 9¢3y |) 1142930 1687505) (4) 315710 255 ,060 60,670 Improvements to Subway System: 1334530 10,260 231,450 i990 100, 730 4,400 151,810 9,880 33,850 100,900 20,940 47,680 201,350 334,700 168,750 255,060 Minor Operational Improvements: Major Operational Improvements: 201,350 36,570 334,700 108,880 168,750 22,660 255,060 Stoo Provincial estimates include revised Metro Toronto estimates. 2. Provincial estimates include lower Metro Toronto estimates. 3. Contains only user groups who ''Cannot use Public Transportation, Must Use Special Vehicle", ''Those who Cannot use Public Transportation, but Can be Driven", and "Those who Presently Use Public Transportation, but Can be Driven". 4. Includes all physically handicapped, even those who have no difficulty with p.t. Peat, Marwick and Partners VI-19 URBAN ONTARIO DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS The demand estimates produced in Exhibits VI-8 and VI-9 repre- sent daily demands for each of a selected list of municipalities. When these demand estimates are applied to the entire Ontario disabled urban population, the annual demand estimates can be calculated. This is shown in Exhibit VI-11. The population used for estimating demand for new transportation services was the entire urban (cities over 10,000) disabled population (i.e. 5.4 million); the population used for esti- mating demand for improvements to existing services was the population of Ontario cities with public transportation services (i.e. 4.6 million). The exhibit also shows the population served and the estimated annual trips per physically handicapped person for each transportation option. Another way of expressing the figures is that the average physically handicapped person to whom a new service is made available will use it once or twice every three days. The demand estimates discussed in Exhibit VI-11 indicate the number of trips which each transportation option is estimated to attract. For example, the implementation of door-to-door service in urban Ontario for "all physically handicapped who either cannot use public transpor- tation, or who use it now with Pieciculteie would attract an estimated 89,000 passenger trips per day, if offered at a 30¢ fare. 6. Including the user group "Cannot use Public Transportation, Must use Special Vehicle", "Cannot use Public Transportation but Can be Driven", and ''Can use Public Transportation with Difficulty". Eligibility Limitations Each of the transportation options detailed previously has been oriented toward a defined user group, and it has been assumed that 100% of this market (all who would be expected to use that mode) would take advantage of the service when they travel and when the service is available. The impacts on demand and cost, which would result from possible limitations on patronage, are now estimated. Two types of limitations in eligibility are considered: L Limit monthly use for trip purposes other than work and education to ten trips at the 30¢ fare. ns Limit use for trip purposes other than work and education for those whose family incomes do not exceed $5,000 per year. Any other criteria could be applied to limit the number of trips an individual could take, or the number of individuals who are eligible. The limitation of ten trips per month and family incomes of less than $5,000 are relatively arbitrarily selected. In practice, the province might consider limiting service in other ways, such as to those people who qualify for disability pensions. For any of these alternatives, demand figures and cost implications can be calculated. Limitations for Trip Purposes other than Work and Education to Ten Monthly Trips The limitation to a total of ten trips per month for trip purposes other than work and education corresponds to the establishment VI-20 VI-21 of an upper allowable trip rate of 0.33 trips per day for the average patron of the system. For the 30¢ fare option, this would produce a limitation in trips other than work and education, as the daily trip rate is greater than 0.33 daily. We determined the percentage restraint of demand by examining (a) the number of respondents who said they would either take a special vehicle or would use a taxi-type service, and (b) their projected other than work and education trip rate. The results from the survey were as follows: RESPONSE - METRO AND OTHER CITIES' SURVEYS Would Take Trip Rate Other Than Special Would Take | For Additional} Work and Vehicle a Taxi- Trips that Education Service ype Service | Would be Taken|Trip Rates 1. Those who use a special vehicle Sod fe 2. Those who do not use a special vehicle but cannot take public transit * Some people in Category 1 said they would use a taxi-type service and some people in Category 2 said they would use a special vehicle service. However, it was assumed that if the two new services were available, people who now use a special van would use the special vehicle service and the others would use a special taxi-type service. The effect of a ten-trip limitation on other than work and education trips would be to restrict the 33.5% and 41% from making more than .33 trips/day for those purposes. Since they now make some trips for those purposes on those modes (.16 and .18), and since they anti- cipate making an additional .53 and .58 trips/day, there would be an overall significant reduction in total trips on the new service if a ten-trip/month restriction were imposed. In fact, instituting such a restriction has the overall effect of reducing the estimated demand by 23% for the special vehicle trips and 30% for the taxi-type service trips. Limitation of Service for Trips Other than Work and Education to Incomes Less than $5,000 About 75% of the disabled’ who have difficulty using public transportation have annual family incomes below $5,000. Therefore, a $5,000 income limitation would have some, but not substantial, effect in reducing demand. COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Improvements to Existing Services Referring back to the transportation options outlined in the beginning of this chapter, and listed in Exhibit VI-4, we elaborate on the programs and describe their cost implications. Each is discussed in turn. ——__-----————————————— 7. Including all user groups, even those who have no difficulty using public transportation. VI-22 VI-23 Training Programs The first purpose of training programs would be to assist the physically handicapped to use the existing public transit systems through education and possibly training. For example, in Metro Toronto most destinations can be reached by bus, and disabled people could be shown how to avoid the subway. The second purpose would be to educate operators - of buses, streetcars, and subways - on how to assist the physically handicapped. A training program designed to help the physically handicapped use public transportation and taxis might initially make good use of demonstration vehicles available across the province. Depending on the scope of the program and the number of vehicles used, the costs would vary. The vehicles would be regular transit buses, with modified inter- iors to provide audio-visual displays and seating arrangements. A lift would be installed to accommodate wheelchairs. Each vehicle thus equipped might cost $70,000-$100,000, and require training and maintenance personnel. Advertising the program would entail additional expenses. Training taxi drivers to assist physically handicapped would require a commitment on the part of a taxi fleet owner. Taxi drivers could be required to participate in such training as part of the re- quirements for obtaining a licence. The time it would take would be perhaps a one half-day session and a special audio-visual instruction kit could be prepared for this purpose. (This has been done in Montreal through the use of a film shown to taxi drivers.) The preparation of VI-24 the instruction material, promoting it to taxi companies, and carrying out the training would incur public costs. Minor Operational Changes in Public Transportation System Most of the services described in this section require only a commitment on the part of public transportation management and per- sonnel. The major cost item in this section is the minor vehicle modifications, for which there is already the Ottawa-Carleton estimate (see Chapter IV). The addition of grab-bars, rearrangement of two vertical stanchions, and placing of designated seat stickers could cost as low as $50 per bus, as it was the case for Ottawa. Major Operational Changes in Public Transportation System Many of the programs mentioned are not fully attributable to the physically handicapped. This includes the provision of escalators at all subway stations, now a policy of the TIC. The bus step design is being improved as part of the General Motors bus designated for pro- duction in 1976. Costs which are directly related to the physically handicapped would include the installation of loading devices for wheelchairs on some regular buses (estimated by a General Motors subcontractor at $10,000 per fe) designing a lower step for existing buses (with a eee 8. If 10% of the total Ontario bus fleet were to be equipped with wheelchair lifts, the average annual costs over a ten-year period (average bus life) would be $250,000. VI-25 large, unknown R & D cost), and inclinators (also with a large, unknown R & D cost). Elevators at subway stations might be viewed as improvements for the general public, but the primary raison d'etre would be to improve access to the disabled. Cost estimates are presently being prepared by the TTC, as noted in Chapter IV. Added to these costs would be changes that would have to be made in the interior of subway cars as well as expenditures required to transport people in wheelchairs to and into the subway. stations. Use of Off-Peak Extra Buses and Dial-a-Buses for Group Trips This option requires only changes at the administrative level of public transportation systems, as in most systems there are excess vehicles available in the off-peak period. The only increased costs would be vehicle operation and driver costs at an estimated $1,007 per mile. The buses that might be used most frequently for this purpose would be those fitted with wheelchair loading devices. New Transportation Services Past experience in taxi, small van and dial-a-bus projects has yielded some cost ranges which have been applied to the results of a. Estimate supplied by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Province of Ontario. Sloujieg pue yoTMAeW ‘jee 000°000$ (000° 000$) snusAdy InUuUsADY INoyITM 3809 WnoyFtM 3809 Sutjzersdg [Tenuuy | [2,0] Tenuuy ‘ojUuOIO] ut peddeotpuey AT TeotsAyd Jo Aunod [enjoe sapnytout ‘oquoJO], ut peddeotpuey A{[eotshkyd 10jF ajewyT}se [e2AeT VdUSpTOUT sSepnToUT "(90€ OD) AITNOTFFTA YIFA It esq ATUO ueD OYM IO ‘fuotzeIAI0d -SUBI] OT[qGNg esM JoUUeD OYA JNq ojuoioy, | ‘udsATId 29q ued OYM eSOUT, [IV 10F S29TITO 19470 - 8dTAIIS 100G-03-100q edhJ- TxeL °(20€ &) uotjzej_iodsuelal, OT[qng esp JouUeD 03U0 10], yng usATAG 9q UPD OYM TTY 105 SeTITO 29470 - 8dTAI9S 100qg-03-100q edd] -Txe]L "(90€ DH) AITNOTIFFA YIM JI esq ATUO ueg 1zo uoTtTjeRAOdsuPIA] o7uU0LOL ITTGNd 8S JoOuUReD OYA VsSOUL [IV 1295 S9TIID 19470 - 9dTAIIS eTITYeA TeTIedS 100q-0}3-100¢ °(S0€ D) uoTIeAszodsueIrl oUO0IO] OT1qnd BSH JYouUeD OYM VSO [IV 105 SOTATD 19430 || - POTAZVS eTOTYSeA TeToeds 100qg-03-1000 *(90€ BD) FTOFYURA o7U0IO] [etoeds easy ysny oymM vsouy, 10j S9TITD 124390 - aT9TYeA [TeToeds 100q-0}-100qG (seTT9 peAsains) uotjzd9 uotzej10dsuedy, uotje[ndog eaiy otTyde130e5 peAsArns NOLTLVINdOd TXAAANNS SHOIAYHS NOILVLIYOdSNVYL MAN YOU SLSOO JO AYVWWNS CI-IA LIGIHXd Sileujieg pue yoTmMAeW ‘eed (000°000$ $3s09 yTenuuy *ORUOAOT, OARIW AOF SozeWTISS AVMOT Sopnypouyt uot je [ndog ofTiejuQ ueqin PpeTqestd *Ssoin3TJ O1JeW pesfAsl sapnpoul *AVINOTFFTA YFFM IF esn ATUO uep oym Zo ‘uotjzejazodsueazal IT[qnd 9Sf JouUe|D oyM 3nq SuaATIq eq UBD OUM BeSOUT [IV AOJ - VOTAIVS 100G-0}-100q oadA]-Txe], *uotqejaodsueaz], OTTqng espn Jouue|D yng weatTig eq ueDg OYA TLV 205 - a0TAIIS 100G-03-100q edA]-Txe], *AQ[NOTIFTA YIM II 9Sq ATUOC ueD AO uot jejzizodsuerzy OTTqGnd 9SH JouueD OYM VSOUT, TITV 105 BOTAIVS VTOTYeA TeTIedS 100-073-1004 *uotzejrzodsueazl DT1Tqng eS JouurD oOUM esOoUuL [TV 10J - ddTAIGS BTOTYeA TeTOedS 100q-0}3-100q *aTOTYaA Tetoeds espn 3AsNW OYUM esOY] 10F - BOTAIOS VsTOTYaA TeTOedS 100q-0}-100G SHOIAUAS GHLIWIINN YOdA SALVWILSH LSOO TVIONTAOdd Nvdall €Il-IA LIGIHX4 C 1 the vehicle hours of operation calculation discussed above. These cost ranges are presented below: Cost Range (Per Vehicle Hour of Operation, Average Cost Including Operating, (Per Vehicle Type of Service Capital and Overhead Costs Hour of Operation) tax $ 9.00 - $11.00 $10.00 Small Van 12200%-" 15500 13200 Dial-a-Bus 13.00 - 16.00 14.50 Operating Cost: 85% of total cost. Exhibit VI-12 shows a summary of the annual costs for five alternative new services. Daily cost estimates have been expanded to present annual costs (using a multiplier of 300). Calculated on the basis of the preliminary demand estimates some of the more comprehensive transportation services are quite expen- sive; for example, the costs have been calculated as $10 million for a special van service and $31 million (based on low population estimates) for a door-to-door service for all those who cannot use public transit and those who use it with difficulty for Metro Toronto. From the costs prepared for Metro Toronto and the other cities, we have extrapolated costs for new services based on demand estimates for all of urban Ontario. Exhibit VI-13 shows total costs for the province for the new service options. VI-26 Direct Subsidization The direct subsidization transportation options listed in Exhibit VI-4 and earlier in this chapter are a series of administrative means to lower the cost to the disabled of the use of existing commer- cial services. To do this, payments can be made to any of the following groups: - subsidies, or transportation "coupons", to the disabled - subsidies to taxi and commercial van operators - subsidies to organizations serving the handicapped - loans or epante to individuals for acquiring, converting, and learning how to drive private vehicles. Subsidies to the Disabled The cost of directly subsidizing the disabled, through trans- portation coupons for example, depends on the total amount designated for the program; that is, up to a maximum demand it is constrained only by the funds provided. The amount of money to be provided is a policy issue. The costs per trip would be roughly equivalent to the new services' projected costs, since the difference between the fare to the disabled user (e.g. 30¢) and the price charged by the operator (e.g. $6.00-$8.00 for special van service) would be the same as the costs to a transit operator managing an equivalent service. However, the "subsidies to the disabled" administrative procedure is more flexible if only limited assistance is to be provided, since it would not in- volve setting up the operation of an entire new service. VI-28 Subsidize Fares Through Commercial Operators These subsidies would be administered through the use of contracted services to private operators, e.g. for the TIC work trip services for 46 physically handicapped persons currently being imple- mented. The costs would be subject to negotiation, as the private operator must also buy vehicles to accommodate demand. As general guide- lines, the private operator who was selected for the TIC project made a bid (renegotiable after six mechan of $6.25 per trip (for special van service). A similar proposal for taxi service in Deere econ was for a taxi fare of $2.85 per trip, and $3.00 per trip for special vehicle service. The subsidies to commercial operators would be similar to the costs of organizing the service as part of the public transit system, for which Ontario-wide costs have been estimated in Exhibit VI-13. In fact, the most probable administrative way of providing new services would be to contract out to commercial operators. Should charitable organizations be contracted to provide special services, the costs would probably be less. The reasoning be- hind this is the lack of profit motive, the availability of volunteer help, and staff costs being covered by agency funds, rather than from revenue. This appears to be the case with the LIP-funded special services. However, as with the LIP operations, the service standards would likely 10. The bid was submitted by OC Transpo by M & Co. Bus Lines. VI-29 be lower than commercial operators under contract, since any reliance on volunteer help for long-term commitments will probably lead to service deterioration. Subsidize Organizations Most organizations in the past have provided transportation for specific trip purposes, although recently there have been organiza- tions providing trips for all purposes. The subsidization of the latter kind is similar to contracting for services from charitable organizations discussed above. Subsidizing organizations for their own trip purposes is already carried on by the Province, especially with respect to the Ministries of Education and Community and Social Services (see Chapter III). The Ministry of Health is a candidate for the special trip purpose (i.e. medical) service, although no estimates are available about potential cost. Private charitable organizations also have special purpose transportation requirements (about $225,000 in Metro Toronto is spent by dozens of organizations for this kind of transportation). Clearly, an approximate estimate of costs of subsidizing special services through organizations must be preceded by decisions as to which organizations are eligible and for what trip purposes. ADAPTATION OF AUTOMOBILES The surveys generated information on possible interest by EXHIBIT VI-14 ADAPTED AUTO INTEREST (FROM MAIL-OUT) (By Driver's Licence) Could Not Drive Even Driver's Would be Would Not Be With Too Young Licence Interested Interested Adapted Auto | To Drive Peat, Marwick and Partners VI-30 the disabled for a program to assist disabled people to acquire, con- vert, and learn how to drive adapted automobiles. Exhibit VI-14 shows the results of a question about adapted autos asked in the mail-out questionnaire. The results indicate that between 25% and 30% of all mail-out survey respondents who replied (to this question) said that they would be interested in such a program, Also, about 30% of all those who were interested do hold a driver's licence. It is likely, as is the case in other countries (U.K.) that an adapted auto program would apply mainly to those who are severely disabled and would require a special vehicle. The potential market for adapted cars would also possibly be constrained by age (over 18, likely under 65), and by disability. The disability types that are most common at handicapped driving schools are para- and quadraplegia and back/spine injuries, although people with a wide variety of disabilities have learned how to drive a specially adapted automobile. The number of candidate disabled in the province for an adapted car program, therefore, is realistically much less than those who said they would be interested in such a program. If all those who said they are interested are extrapolated to the entire Ontario urban handicapped population, about 85,000 would be interested. However, if the potential market were restricted to those within the age, income, and disability constraints discussed above, there would be almost 18,000 to 20,000 who would comprise the potential market for an adapted car program, If a program were established in Ontario, it is difficult to predict how many people would actually participate. It would depend primarily on how well the program was marketed and the extent of public financial assistance. If Ontario had historically developed along the line of the British in this area (in the U.K. "invucars" are given to eligible disabled) possibly about 2,000 to 3,000 people would now be participating. This would represent about 10% to 15% of the potential market as calculated above, possibly a realistic figure. Since 2,000 to 3,000 would be an accumulated figure, the Reet cion rate on an annual basis would probably be no more than several hundred. As expres- sed above, the attractiveness of the program to the disabled will affect the participation rate to a considerable extent. Cost Estimates For Adapted Automobiles The expenses in providing assistance to the disabled to drive specially adapted automobiles would include: the cost of the vehicle ($3,000 for a standard car, $5,500 for a standard van), the cost of conversions (as low as $100.00 for hand controls in an automobile and as high as $5,000 for raised roof, hand controls, electro/mechanical lift in a van), the cost of training (up to $500,000), and the costs of operating the car. The Province could establish a variety of loan/ grant programs to cover the costs of affording the handicapped person the possibility of driving by himself. As indicated above, the potential market for specially adapted cars is about 2,000 to 2,500 people VI-31 VI-32 (compared to about 700 with special licences - often indicating some alterations to vehicles - existing at present). The main point about the costs of an adapted car program is that, even paying for the purchase of a standard automobile, the special car solution can be less expensive than to provide an unlimited special van service. The average disabled who would be a frequent user of a special van service, for example for work purposes, would be very expensive to transport. In the TIC experiment, the projected cost per passenger per year is over $3,000, for example, and it might be less expensive to assist potential users of this system to drive an adapted car. INTERPRETATION OF DEMAND AND COST ESTIMATES These demand and cost estimates presented thus far have been generated from the data produced from the surveys undertaken as part of the study. They were presented as preliminary estimates, and are now subject to further modification and interpretation. Data Base The first question to be examined is whether the surveys are valid as to number of physically handicapped and the overall accuracy of their responses to the survey questions. These points can be sum- marized as follows: i The total estimates of disabled with transportation problems in Ontario is subject to the qualifications outlined in Chapter II. The two different estimates used for Metro Toronto highlight the difficulty in the total population estimates' procedures. The total disabled with transportation problems estimates are probably conservative (i.e. low) as discussed in Chapter II. pie The samples selected for these surveys, although possibly more representative of the disabled with transportation problems than any other set of samples, are subject to certain biases outlined in Chapter V. The people interviewed in the Metro Toronto survey, the other cities' survey and all those who responded to the mail-out questionnaire, probably travel some- what more than the average disabled person. About 30% of those asked to be interviewed in the Metro Toronto and other cities personal interview surveys refused to grant an interview, and about 60% of those who received the mail-out questionnaire did not respond. Although there are valid reasons for many of these people for not responding to the surveys, it could be argued that their current and future trip rates would be less than those who did respond. These limitations in the data base are very difficult to quantify, although they tend to cancel each other out. A way of testing the validity cf the demand estimates is to compare to an actual situation. Sweden was the country which had the most experience in this area, and data was available for the City of Gothenburg. Comparison With Gothenburg Gothenburg has an existing publicly-supported transit service specially designed for the physically handicapped. This Swedish city provides a fully comprehensive set of special services, with the only VI-33 VI-34 limitation being a maximum of eight leisure (off-peak) trips per month by the disabled who cannot use public transit. The ridership in Gothenburg is compared to the expected ridership of a city of a similar size based on preliminary estimates of the surveys in this study. The estimates used are calculated on the basis of a ten-trip maximum for other than work and education purposes. GOTHENBURG, SWEDEN - POPULATION 450,000, ELIGIBLE DISABLED 2% Gothenburg Average Daily Average Trips for Equivalent Service Daily Trips Size City in Ontario* Taxi trips subsidized for those who cannot use public transit Special vehicle trips for those who cannot use public transit and who need a special vehicle 2,000 2,025 400 525 | * Compiled from other cities' survey data for a general pupulation of 450,000. The above table shows that the estimates for an equivalent Ontario city are somewhat higher than the actual demand experienced in Gothenburg. However, Gothenburg is predicting an increase in the number of disabled users and thereby an increase in total demand. There are problems of comparability between Ontario and Gothenburg. First, the eligible disabled - at 2% - is higher (and is growing) than that projected for the Ontario situation - 1.3% (see Chapter II). Second, Gothenburg is a more public-transit-oriented city than an equivalent one of the same size in Ontario, and thus, probably attracts a higher special transit ridership. Gothenburg probably repre- sents a fairly mature transit and special transit situation with a demand that would exceed that of an equivalent Ontario city. Preliminary data from the Ottawa-Carleton experience, a city that is roughly the same size as Gothenburg, Sweden, indicates a much lower demand. Special services are now being provided to those disabled who cannot use public transit for aaareal and work trips. The following figures indicate that, at least in the very initial stage of a service, ridership is low: Special vehicle service: 240 to 250 trips/week Taxi-type service: 400 trips/week. Therefore, it is concluded that some of the preliminary assumptions about future travel behaviour of the physically handicapped should be modified. Re-examination of Demand and Cost Assumptions There are two demand assumptions and one cost assumption which bear re-examination. Each will be discussed in turn. VI=35 VI-36 Market for New Services In preparing preliminary demand estimates, it was assumed that all eligible physically hardicapped people would be attracted to the new service, and that all of the existing trips taken on the mode of the new service (either taxi or commercial van) would be taken on the new service. In practice, this would not be the case. For example, school trips by disabled schoolchildren would not be attracted to the new service (or if these trips were attracted by the new service, then the existing disabled schoolchildren transportation service paid for by the province would no longer be necessary). It is probably more realistic to assume that the market for the new transportation services would be only those people who said that they would take the service if it were offered at the fare of re- gular public transit services. Of the total number of the disabled who were interviewed in the Metro Toronto and other cities' surveys who could not use public transit, 41% said they would use taxis if the fare were lowered to regular transit fares, and of those who needed a special van, 33.5% said they would use one if it were offered at a 30c¢ fare level. Therefore, the effective market for the new service would be about two- fifths and one-third of the eligible market in each case. Future Demand Estimates Those people who replied that they would take a taxi-type service or special van service at regular transit fares were asked to estimate how many additional trips they would make if the services were provided. Of those who replied, the additional trips projected were at the rate of .84 trips per day in a special van and .64 trips per day in a taxi-type service. This projected trip rate is probably an over- statement of actual future travel, since the existing trip rates by taxi and by special van was much less than the additional trips that these people intended to make. We feel it is a reasonable assumption that people do not travel as much as they say they will. Therefore, we considered that the trips that respondents said would be additional to their existing travel would, in fact, be their total trip-taking for the new special service. Lower Salary Costs In costing future services, regular transit operator salaries were used for computing salary costs. Operators’ salaries are about 50% of total capital and operating costs (depending on the features of their operation). However, it appears that existing drivers earn much less than regular transit drivers, and are not unionized. The salary structure for private special service operators is lower than regular transit service operators. Accordingly, we could make the assumption that about one-third could be deducted from salary costs, which means about one-sixth from the total costs for providing new services. Revised Estimates To show how the revised assumptions affect preliminary esti- mates, we examine a combination of special van and taxi option for all VI-37 sioujzieg pue yoTMAey *Qeed “pelTqestp e1qESTTe Jo rzequnu 10F soin3TJ OM} 24 OF JUNODSe sazeUTASe OWUOCTOL O1}9W WITeFFJTP OMI PUL ai qtsueiq oTtTqnd asn jZouuRPd OYM lpetqestp Jo 3Se1 IOF aotArzes odkQ-Txel] +T aou oyM esoy} 105 TAzes ueA TeToeds v0 U OM], pue 93ud Sdtail [TBuOTITppV SOOTAIOS MON DITAIVS sjs0) zeAtig | suotjzdunssy se po eoTpul asp prnom potqesta peonpey ueaTd | ueATD s4so0p sdtaj ey} ATUO ST Ady, Butpuodseay | eTqQT3TLa sjso9 [Tenuuy yenuuy Sa0TAIAS MON OF | peTqestd FO 79 quUNN Jo °ON pueueq sutTunssy Aeq aod sdtaz OML NOTLGWNSSV ViVd AdAUNS NO GaSsval SALVWLLSA AUVNIWL THEA] CRRA SAR NOLLdWNSSV aNO NOLLGWOASSV ne ee TMC Ced el NOlIdO AOIAUAS MAN GALOIS YOd SALVWILSA LSOD UNV GNVYWAd GaSTAdd GI-IA LIdIHxXd those disabled who cannot use public transportation in urban centres in Ontario. Cost estimates previously calculated on a preliminary basis have been revised as shown on Exhibit VI-15. Exhibit VI-15 shows that it is probable that if the revised assumptions about demand and cost estimates are valid, the cost to the province of meeting the needs of disabled people who cannot take public transit would be between $15 and $20 million. These cost estimates are total estimates, without any proposed municipal/provincial costs sharing arrangement. In addition, there would be a small offsetting revenue (e.g. 30¢ per trip). This cost estimate would apply if the province were to embark upon a special transit subsidy program in the immediate future and if all municipalities avail themselves to it. Once the service has matured, then other physically handicapped who are eligible but who had not immediately responded to the possibility of taking the new service could be attracted to that service. Therefore, between five to ten years from now, or possibly longer, the demand for special services might go beyond the revised figures. Methods to Reduce Costs We have considered thus far the likely demand for new services if these services were to be provided. However, there are ways to reduce costs through lowering the service level (which would reduce demand) or restrict the eligibility of users. Such procedures might be VI-38 Improvements ! Demand estimates under different public transit im- provement options Preliminary estimates for urban Ontario Cost esti- mates for EXHIBIT VI-16 LOGIC OF TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS js jaahio] Essa Lid New Services New Services | Improvements Fonpir [potpasih a] New Services Improvements Subsidies classify disabled in four user groups surveys show existing trip rates for three disabled samples of user group surveys show existing market share of each transportation mode for three disabled samples by user group define transportation options benefitting all or some user groups calculate future trip rates under different transportation options by user group for two samples calculate future market share for each transportation option for each user group for two samples preliminary demand estimates under five new service options vehicle requirements to meet demand estimates for five options cost estimates for each new service option based on preliminary demand estimates - preliminary demand and cost estimates for new services given trip limit restrictions to new service options for urban Ontario Bt Bee i - cost estimates for new service options public transit im- provements revised demand and cost estimates for most probable new services options, given modified assumptions about demand Peat, Marwick and Partners VI-39 considered as part of the first stage introduction of new services for the disabled. They are as follows. Reduce Service Level Le Fares could be set above the regular transit fare which would reduce demand through this price mechanism. abe Making an advance booking procedure mandatory, whereby the disabled would have to plan and book in advance their travel arrangements, would inhibit discretionary travel demand. Restrict Eligibility Ly Only certain trip purposes, such as work and education or work and medical, could be provided. Rie The user group could be limited, possibly beginning with the disabled who need a special van service. a5 The number of trips per nonth, possibly for the non- regular trips as is the case in most Swedish cities, could reduce the number of trips to be provided. The above are some of the ways of controlling cost by restrict- ing eligibility or reducing service levels. Cost estimates given these or any other set of restrictions can be made from the survey data. SUMMARY The steps of the analysis of this chapter are illustrated in Exhibit VI-16. Transportation for the disabled can be improved in essentially two ways: - improvements to existing public transit - establishment of new services specially designed for the disabled. V1I-40 The public transit improvements can be fairly marginal, involving only minimum equipment modifications and some staff and marketing expenditures. However, their impact would also be fairly marginal. Major modifications, involving quite substantial equipment and physical plant expenditures, would have a greater impact on making public transit more accessible to the physically handicapped. However, the more severely disabled would still find in-city travelling by transit virtually impossible. New door-to-door service options could be provided to include various disabled users, as shown below: USER GROUPS Need Don't Need Special | Can Use Special | Vehicle but Cannot | P.T. With Vehicle Use P.T. Difficult X xX X X X xX Transportation Options 1. Door-to-door special van service Door-to-door special van service Door-to-door special van service . Taxi-type service Taxi-type service Demand and cost estimates have been prepared and modified according to assumptions about future travel behaviour based on the surveys' results. Anticipated costs for No.1 and No.4 to provide most cheaply for all the disabled who cannot use public transportation would be between $18 and $20 million for all municipalities over 10,000 in the province. Estimates of future disabled demand should be considered less precise than the estimates of travel demand developed over the years for the general population. Similarly, estimates of costs are based only on limited or ancillary experience. It is really only through ex- perimentation with new services that will provide a means to corroborate the demand and cost estimates developed in this chapter. Subsidizing handicapped people directly, or subsidizing operators and other organizations, really does not affect the total cost. Restricting the number of eligible users and uses do. Subsidizing only certain people or organizations is one means to restrict the number of users and uses, and thus can result in lower total costs. Subsidizing current operators may be administratively preferable, especially for smaller cities. For example, a city could opt for service No.1 and No.4 above, subsidizing taxi rides to comply with service No.4. Subsidizing the adaptation of autos and promoting their use by the disabled could decrease the demand for special services, and thus reduce the total cost of new special services programs. VI-41 o : asd t tan = Eat et eae VII - POLICY ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS In this chapter, we discuss possible policy alternatives for the Ontario Government with respect to new or improved transportation services for the physically handicapped within urban centres. We attempt to identify che relevant policy questions, suggest various transportation options and their costs, and show the implications for the various Ontario ministries. Also discussed are the implementation approaches that would logically follow the adoption of specific policy directions. POLICY ISSUES Policy options can be identified and costed, and analogies made to practices in other countries and jurisdictions. However, we cannot recommend how much is enough public support of the transportation services to the disabled. It is the political process which must decide among alternative policies and the amount of public funding to support them. Our analysis embraced a wide variety of programs that could improve prareperraticn services for the disabled. An extensive program for all those who could not use public transit would cost annually at least $15 million, and even partial solutions that make a meaningful contribution to handicapped transportation across the province would cost several millions of dollars. VII-1 VII-2 The Ministry of Transportation and Communications initiated this study based on its need to respond appropriately to continuing requests from various representatives of the disabled, as well as because of its responsibility to provide, through its subsidy programs, transit facilities for all Ontario urban residents. Currently, the Province is spending about $55 million on transit subsidies.+ To ade- quately serve the 3% of the population that is handicapped, the Province (including municipalities) could easily spend that amount. Thus, programs designed to improve transportation for the disabled can be very expensive. We have concluded that the basic policy questions facing the Government of Ontario are as follows: Ee Is there a need for new or improved transportation services for the disabled and how should the Ontario Government respond to this need? Pie If increased transportation assistance or improved services are provided, what part of the physically handicapped population should receive this assistance? by What are the service alternatives to meet the need and how much will it cost the Province? 4. What are the implications for various Ontario ministries to establishing new services or improving existing transportation services? a ip What are the alternative ways of implementing programs for new or improved services? 1. This figure does not include the $30 million in subsidies to Metro Toronto for subway construction for 1973-1974, nor the $2 million for the operating deficit of GO Transit and $2 million for general demonstration projects. VII-3 As shown by the questions above, consideration of new or im- proved transportation services for the disabled goes beyond municipal subsidy policy issues of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The policy implications to the latter program are a sub-set of the range of policy implications to other programs within the provincial government and are elaborated below. GENERAL RATIONALE FOR ASSISTANCE In terms of justifying more support for new or improved trans- portation services the following logic might apply. First, there is an expressed need by handicapped people for new or improved services. Second, there is a relative need, since for many physically handicapped people existing transportation options are severely restricted. Third, it could be argued that the provincial government's transportation and social services policies do not adequately serve the disabled segment of society. Expressed and Relative Need It seems that there is no question about the need for improved transportation services. Continuous references are made to urban trans- portation as being a severe problem by organizations representing or serving the physically handicapped. Such area raciat often point to the chief difficulty in delivery of recreation, education, and medical services to the handicapped to be the lack of economic, adequate trans- portation services. The emergence of numerous transportation services under LIP grants is further demonstration of the basic need. VII-4 The need is also apparent when one examines the relative utility of improved transportation services for the physically handi- capped as opposed to other segments of the population. The handicapped, like the poor, are a disadvantaged group. However, it is a relatively smaller sacrifice for low-income people to buy public transportation trips than for low-income physically handicapped people to buy taxi or commercial van trips (which in Toronto, for example averages $6.00 or $7.00 per trip). Other disadvantaged groups who are outside regular transit services generally have more access to automobiles than the physically handicapped, and can walk relatively more easily than the physically handicapped people. Therefore, it can be argued that there is a relatively greater need for improved or new transportation services for the physically handicapped, than for these other groups. Survey Results Confirmation of Need The surveys showed existing travel by the disabled to be half or less that of the average Ontario resident, and a projection of in- creased travel by respondents if economic, adequate services were offered. Beyond this indication of need, the surveys also revealed that: - about a quarter of the trips by the disabled are by taxi, a very expensive mode, compared to the average taxi market share of about 2% for the general population - the dominant modes used by the disabled are taxi, special van, and as auto passenger; for the least severely disabled it is public transit. These results show how the disabled is obliged to travel via very expensive transportation services, or to depend on others for trans- portation. One might conclude that neither is very satisfactory for the disabled. Existing Government Programs Since the Province is already subsidizing transportation in urban areas, it could be argued that it will only be equitable when the transit services can be used by all residents. For those who cannot use existing transit services, improvements should be made to accommo- date them as well. The counter-argument is mainly that the cost per trip that will have to be absorbed by the public would be significantly greater than present public subsidies to existing transit services. The regular transit subsidy is 5¢ to 15¢ per trip, while some dial-a-bus services might result in subsidies per trip of up to $1.00. However, the sub- sidies per trip for the physically handicapped might reach $6.00 or $7.00 depending on the service offered and fare charged. As an adjunct to its social programs, the Province is now spending a considerable sum of money on transportation for the physically handicapped. However, it could be argued that the delivery of health and community and social services (but not education) is weakened by inadequate provision of transportation services in many cases. Improving that aspect of social services would support the social program objectives, e.g. work, rehabilitation, and recreation programs. VII-5 VII-6 If transportation deficiencies are viewed solely as the weak component of certain social services delivery, then transportation for the disabled should be improved to the extent that the social programs are adequately supported. To do this would not require a general up- grading of the transit system. Thus, the general rationale for improving transportation services for the disabled across the board is based on need. Arguments relative to existing government programs can be made both for and against improved services, but it cannot be denied that about 3% of the general population do have transportation problems. DISABLED USER GROUPS Since it is unlikely that new or improved transportation services will be provided immediately for all physically handicapped people with mobility limitations, it is important to review how the physically handicapped population can be divided into user groups. In this way priorities for new or improved services can be assigned. There are three basic ways to group the disabled for transporta- tion purposes. First, there is the relative degree of his mobility restriction. Second, there are other factors which can be used to dis- tinguish one handicapped person from another, such as income, age, and whether he has access to an automobile. Third, the user groups may be defined by the purpose of the trip or the time of day in which the trip was taken. VII~7 Mobility Limitation In this study we have used three degrees of mobility limita- tions, which are as follows: - those disabled people who must use a special vehicle to travel - the people who do not need a special vehicle but who cannot take public transportation - those people who can use public transportation but with difficulty. Programs could be established to assist any of these three groups. A major problem, however, is that there is significant over- lapping of the three groups. People who might seem to require special vehicles for travel, e.g. those in wheelchairs, do take taxis and other passenger cars, and in some cases even drive themselves. There are also people who do take public transportation with a great deal of difficulty, while others could take it but do not. Nevertheless, experience in other cities and other countries shows that new or special services can be set up for (a) those who are wheelchair-bound or need special assist- ance, and (b) those who need essentially a door-to-door service, although not requiring special boarding assistance or being wheelchair-bound. If a new service were established, it would be politically difficult to assist those in category (b) without also assisting those in category (a), but it would seem feasible to do the reverse, i.e. assist only those in category (a). To provide transportation services to the more severely disabled - category (a) - can be assumed to be VII-8 more socially desirable, since those who are less severely disabled have more transportation options open to them. This same reasoning would tend to place less priority on category (c) - those who now use public transit but with difficulty. Socio- Economic Restrictions New or improved services could be restricted to physically handicapped people within certain age, income, or other socio-economic constraints. It would appear to be somewhat artificial to make age a restriction (say those over or under 65). On the other hand, it is possibly more feasible to restrict user groups to those with less than a set disposable income. One of the more feasible ways of discriminating on the basis of income would be to isolate those people receiving disability pensions and who cannot take public transportation. According to our mail-out survey, approximately 30% of the 33,000 people now receiving disability pensions would fall into this category. It is interesting to note that Denmark uses this criterion for determining who is eligible for receiving transportation assistance. The only other socio-economic characteristic that could be meaningful in this case is whether a person has access to an automobile. Presumably, one who does have such access would have fewer transportation problems. However, excluding people from a new transportation service just because they happen to have friends or relatives to drive them has been considered as unfair by the handicapped interviewed. Disabled people tend to run out of friends to take them places. It would certainly be possible to select any one group of the physically handicapped and satisfy its transportation needs. The Province has already done so for physically handicapped schoolchildren for low- income institutionalized elderly, among others. Limitations in Trips A convenient way of limiting user groups is to provide new services for certain trips only. For example, as is the case with the TIC pilot project, work trips only could be provided for or subsidized. In certain cities in Sweden, the distinction is made between regular (primarily work, medical, and education) and non-regular trips (mostly recreation and personal purposes). Other possible trip priorities could be those which assist non-profit and public social and health agencies to deliver their services. As an alternative to limitation by trip purpose, a ceiling on the number of allowable trips can be used to further define the eligible user group. Selecting User Groups We discussed above the various ways in which different user groups can be singled out for new or improved transportation services. The categories are numerous, and to illustrate we show in Exhibit VII-1 a partial set of user groups that could be identified. VII-9 Sloujieg pue yoTMIeW ‘eed baw band adi dIuL JO aASOduNd NI NOTLVLINIT SUOTIEITWT][ WFWOUODa-OTIOS 19430 auooUuT SUOTIEITWT]T OTWOUODe-OTIOS 19470 suoOdUuT - e3e :JTsueal OTTqNd es JouURD SUOTIEIIUT]T DFWOUdDe-OTIOS 19470 owooutT - a3e ras ~ SSTOFYaA TeFoeds FO poeeNn suTadoys /sseutsng /Teuosied Tet90S§ /uoTzee199y SNOLLVDIAITVNO OIWONODE-O1L90S CNV ALITISOW JO AADAC Ad NOILVLINIT SdNOud YWASN AIAISSOd T-IIA LIGTHXd Some user group categories make more sense than others, both from a standpoint of rational social policy and transportation solutions. To assist in policy-making, we put forward suggestions as to which groups might logically be served first: Le Those who need a special vehicle, since their needs on an individual basis are greater than the less severely disabled. eis Possibly those who are below a certain level of disposable income, although restricting people on any socio-economic basis would be seen by some as a conflict in the principle of providing public transportation to all people. 33 Possibly limitation in trip purpose to regular trips, particularly work. However, it might be preferable to limit trip number rather than trip purpose to provide the handicapped with a maximum of choice and trip purpose. There are different cost and service implications to these and other sets of user groups. Some of the cost and service implications are outlined below. TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OPTIONS In Chapter VI, a series of transportation options was described and related to specific user groups (see Exhibit VI-4). While many of the transportation options discussed are discrete new or improved services that can be implemented individually, many of them are quite complementary. For the purposes of discussion, the basic options are described, taking into account the complementarity of the options. They are as follows: VII-10 VII-11 Public Transit Improvements 1. A program to alter the interior of buses without major modifications, and phasing in of lower step model new buses. 2. Various outreach or training/promotion programs to increase use by and acceptance of the disabled re public transit. 3. Modify some of the existing bus fleet to accommo- date wheelchairs. 4. Modify fixed rapid transit (i.e. the Metro Toronto subway) to accommodate wheelchairs (i.e. install elevators or design and develop inclinators). Any one of these options could be implemented, although to make use of #4, a special service would be required to transport disabled to and from subway stations. New Services 1. A door-to-door special vehicle and taxi service would be the most economical way of transporting the disabled who cannot use public transit, and could be extended to those have difficulty with transit if required. 2. A program to assist the disabled to acquire, operate, and learn how to drive private auto- mobiles. These new services could be implemented instead of or in addition to making improvements to public transit. Both door-to-door service and adapted car programs are comple- mentary, while the new services and public transit improve- ments are only partly complementary. Subsidies Programs 1. Provide transit tokens or funds to organizations to subsidize special van services. 2. Provide transit tokens or assistance to organiza- tions to defray taxi or special vehicle fares. The implementation of subsidies programs would be alter- native to the new door-to-door services option. Subsidies programs would be complementary to public transit improve- ments programs in the sense that they would assist those who still could not use public transit after the improvements. Capital-Intensive Public Transit Improvements Cost and demand estimates are provided in Chapter VI for the capital-intensive improvements to the existing public transit system. The decision with respect to the more capital-intensive improvements to existing transit system can be treated to a great extent separately from the special services decisions. It is felt that physically handicapped people would have to be assisted through special services whether or not long-term plans include the acquisition of buses designed to better accommodate physically handicapped and whether or not elevators or other major access improvements were made to the subway system in Metro Toronto. Questions concerning capital improvements should be related to the desirability of improving transportation for everyone, although they will continue to be raised by representatives of handicapped groups. The timing in capital-intensive improvements decisions is important to the planning and operation of special services, since the sooner the regular public transit system is improved in terms of accessibility to the handicapped, the sooner special services established can be adapted to link to the regular transit system. An exception to the separate treatment of capital-intensive improvements to vehicles and equipment in the regular public transit System is the possibility of acquiring a limited number of vehicles that can accommodate wheelchairs. For example, regular transit service, such as the new dial-a-bus services in the Province, can in some cases VII-12 VII-13 make use of vehicles that are specially equipped. Provided that the intention of the dial-a-bus service is not only to connect people to the regular transit system, with all of the accessibility limitations inherent in the system, the dial-a-bus system can be directly used to improve transportation services for the handicapped. It is conceivable, for example, that dial-a-bus systems may be used in the off-peak periods to serve the physically handicapped on a demand-responsive basis. Planning for new dial-a-bus system could take into account the potential for service to handicapped user groups. Special Services and Subsidies These two types of transportation options point at a fundamental difference in improving transportation for the disabled. Special services imply that new transportation services are required, while the subsidies program tend to make use of existing transportation services. As discussed above, the question about which user group(s) should be served first or at all should be answered. The more people served the more likely it is that new special services will have to be established. Another question is the level of service that should be pro- vided to the user groups - geographic coverage of the service, time of day, frequency, degree of comfort and personalized nature of service. Also, the responsibility for implementation of programs to establish or improve special services for the physically handicapped will have a VII-14 direct bearing on the level of service provided. For example, if special services are provided by charitable organizations, the service may be somewhat less reliable than if it were provided by the transit property in a given municipality. The important policy alternative in the distinction between establishment of new services or subsidization of existing services is whether the services are believed to be an extension of transit or social services. The Ministries of Education and Community and Social Services are now providing, through subsidy, directly operating them- selves, or contracting out, transportation services to achieve their program objectives. The Ministry of Health is undergoing the same type of policy considerations. Using transportation tokens or subsidizing organizations to improve their transportation services could be viewed as further extensions of the Ministry of Community and Social Services' responsibility. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is currently subsidizing transit services, adequate for 97% of the people the services reach, and providing services for the 3% who are now not adequately serviced would be an extension of this transit policy. Establishing new special transit services would more likely be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTC) in cooperation with municipalities. With the planning assistance of the MTC, minici- palities would be best left with the flexibility of selecting their own approaches to providing new or improved services. The Ministry could provide vehicle and service guidelines and have a funding responsibility. VII-15 It is suggested that the involving MTC and the possibility of establishing new special services is the most appropriate policy. The transportation services which might be provided are relatively complex, with little operating experience thus far developed in North America. In addition, the special equipment needed is more in the area of MIC's expertise than any other Ministry. Finally, the MTC has an established pattern of relationships with municipalities and could deal with them in terms of new services. It is suggested that the basic problem is not simply lack of money in the pockets of the physically handicapped, but is also the lack of adequate transportation services. Since the MTC holds the res- ponsibility for transportation in the Province, it follows that the Ministry should assume responsibility for disabled transportation and assist in establishing new transportation services for those who cannot use regular public transit. Undertaking this responsibility should also assist the social agencies to achieve their program ends. Policy Implications If, as we have suggested, it is decided that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications maintains the primary responsibility for new special transit services, there are important policy implications for that Ministry as well as others. We describe below those impli- cations for the MTC and the Ministries of Community and Social Services, Health, and Education. VII-16 Ministry of Transportation and Communications Let us assume that the Ministry is responsible to advise and fund in part municipal programs to improve the existing public transit system, institute training Programs, and establish and subsidize special services for the disabled. The total Capital and operating cost on an annual basis for modifications to the existing system and new services (besides adapted automobiles) could reach over $100 million annually, A table of the government provincial deficits for new special services alone, under alternative assumptions as to restrictions of the service, is presented in Exhibit VII-2, These deficits can be compared to the provincial operating and capital expenditures of $55 million for the fiscal year 1974 for regular transit services. The figures in Table VII-2 represent deficits for new special services covering all cities in Ontario with a population of over 10,000, and for the purposes of dis- cussion splits the costs between the Province and municipalities on a The ways in which MIC might subsidize municipalities for estab- lishing new special services are as follows: ths Extension of current mechanism for transit subsidies, 1.e. 75% of capital and 50% of the operating costs for approved expenditures, ) Be Subsidy of a fixed amount for each subsidized disabled trip for approved trip purposes, similar to the Ministry of Education entitlements for transportation to school Boards. EXHIBIT VII-2 COST ESTIMATES FOR SPECIAL VAN/TAXI NEW SERVICE oprron? FOR_ALL DISABLED UNABLE TO USE PUBLIC TRANSIT Revised Total Cost Estimates (000,000 Provincial Municipal ype of Service Special van service for those who need it Taxi-type service for remainder who cannot use public transit ri ca Notes: 1. Cost estimates are revised as discussed in Chapter VI. fey. Based on higher Metro Toronto disabled population estimate (see Chapter II). Peat, Marwick and Partners VII-17 3. Expenditures of up to x% of the regular transit operating costs subsidies, the x being at least in proportion to the physically handicapped with mo~ bility problems in the general population (i.e. about 3%). The subsidy arrangements could stipulate performance standards (i.e. contract and equipment standards and service criteria) which might vary according to city size. Therefore, the Ministry would be responsible for guidelines with a good deal of municipality flexibility, and for providing funds up to a budgetary ceiling. The service performance standards would probably vary according to size of the municipality, but in turn it would include the following: - for wheelchair passengers, a door-to-door service which would include boarding and debarking assistance from the driver ~ door-to-door service on a pre-booked basis with some demand-responsive service for larger scale operations ~ reasonable travel time for the life of the trip, and well-maintained schedules and appointments - equipment with safety and comfort minimum standards - simplified and properly controlled fare collection procedures, Turning to the other parts of the other services package, the Ministry would have limited involvement. Offering buses and providing more shelters at stops would really be a municipal concern with little backup except through existing subsidy programs. On the other hand, the MIC might take the initiative in assembling a package training pro- gram and vehicle(s) specially equipped for this purpose, VII-18 The acquisition of future transit equipment and assistance in improving access to Toronto subway system are programs in which the MTC will be involved in any case, since such decisions affect regular transit service as well. If the Ministry has overall respon- sibility for transportation for the physically handicapped, it will be in a better position to integrate the planning for new buses and subway access improvements and new special services for the physically handi- capped. Ministry of Community and Social Services - Support Responsibility If the Ministry of Transportation and Communications assumes general responsibility for improving existing and providing new trans- portation services for the disabled, the Community and Social Services (CSS) might be called upon to assist in defining the user groups and their eligibility for receiving special transit services. Otherwise, the Ministry might simply work with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to draft guidelines for user groups to be administered by individual municipalities. The most important support CSS could provide would be through its field operations and local contacts with all municipal and private social agency groups in the Province. As part of its outreach programs, the Ministry could stimulate local involvement in shared cost (Provincial/ Municipal) programs. The objective would be to have the local CSS offices assist in the planning of prospective municipal disabled transportation for which Provincial financial assistance is sought. The Ministry of Community and Social Services would probably be the most logical agency to administer the adapted automobile program. This program could in fact be an extension of existing programs to provide special devices and prosthetic appliances to the disabled. To providing instruction, hand controls, and possibly loans or grants to handicapped people in European countries appears to be the responsibility of the Social Service Agency, and seems appropriate for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The cost implications of such a policy would depend on the schedule of benefits and number of people applying for such Revie carer! With a possible 2,500 people who might wish to participate in this program as identified in Chapter VI, the program could be a substantial one indeed. The exact spending level depends on the benefits covered and whether grants or loans are provided. As discussed in Chapter VI, hand controls for cars start at about $100, while driving instruction can range from $50 to $500, and vehicle costs and the purchase price of the lowest priced automobile to a van specially equipped with an electro-mechanical lift, Community and Social Services - Primary Responsibility If new special services are not established by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and it was decided that the subsidized service package would be preferable, the Ministry of Community and Social Services could possibly have much wider responsibility for handicapped transportation than is envisaged in the new services package. The Ministry could assume responsibility for administering the funds to be VII-19 VII-20 transferred to either organizations or individual handicapped recipients for defraying transportation costs. The Ministry of Community and Social Services appears to have the best contact with non-profit agencies and handicapped people. Therefore, it could administer funds as follows: - directly fund local non-profit and municipal agencies to provide or pay for special trans- portation services for the disabled - issue directly through disability pensions, regional offices, or municipal agencies, taxi and other com- mercial transportation services coupons. Both these procedures would follow other social program poli- cies, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services has suitable experience in such procedures. The first procedure listed above - providing funds to other agencies to administer - would tend to direct closely where transportation services are to be provided. Transporta- tion "chits'' to the disabled, the second procedure listed, would tend to permit the disabled to make trips more at their own discretion. In both cases, the actual operating responsibility and decision-making could be at the level of the municipality, rather directly administered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The cost implications of providing for transportation in this way depend on the user groups, who are included in the policy. Ministry of Health The implications of better transportation services being pro- vided for the disabled affect the delivery of health services. Providing new services for medical purpose trips, or defraying the cost of medical purpose trips would have an impact on the demand for health services at treatment centres, an impact that would have to be examined carefully. What is perhaps of administrative concern to the Ministry of Health is the number of people who are temporarily physically handicapped and would not have already obtained eligibility for transportation to treatment centres. There would have to be some procedure whereby the treatment centre staff could determine the eligibility of individuals quickly in order that they might benefit from a special transportation service. If the handicapped person is not being transported by a service patent iene’ for the transportation of the physically handicapped, the Ministry of Health might consider either providing budgets to the treat- ment centres to set up or pay for transportation expenses, like the Ministries of Education and Community and Social Services, or have the cost assumed by part of the overall Health Insurance program. Ministry of Education Unless the Ministry of Transportation and Communications were to assume responsibility for the transportation of physically handicapped schoolchildren, the impact of any new program on the Ministry of Education would be marginal. It is not suggested that there be any change in the present Ministry of Education program to provide transportation for disabled schoolchildren, since no comprehensive examination was made of the efficiency of that arrangement. VII~-21 VII=-22 It is possible that the Ministry of Education might wish to consider, at the School Board level, the option of using any new service established. If so, the most feasible administrative arrangement would be for the individual school Board to pay the direct cost per trip of the new services used. What is more likely, however, is for a private operator with experience in transporting disabled schoolchildren to obtain a contract to establish the special service for the adult disabled. IMPLEMENTATION If the new services package is decided upon and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications given the overall responsibility for disabled transportation, the following implementation steps should be considered: re The provincial government establish first-year and five-year budgets as subsidies to municipalities for the transportation for the disabled, and that the subsidies be large enough to induce municipality par- ticipation. ive MIC prepare standards and planning guidelines to be followed by municipalities, and design training pro- grams for use by the municipalities. 3. MTC, possibly through the Ontario Transportation Development Corporation, become familiar with special vehicle equipment and possibly taken an even greater development role in new equipment. 4, Municipalities individually should plan in cooperation with the handicapped community and local CSS offices how to best use potential provincial subsidies and local resources for providing the services. oh MTC underwrite initial demonstration programs, pri- marily consisting of the first requests from munici- palities for special services. VII-23 Philosophy of Municipal Participation The cost sharing formula must be sufficiently large to attract the participation of municipalities, probably on a 75-25 basis. The ae outlay for regular transit services is only a small part of the total costs, since operating revenues make-up a large part of these costs. Revenue from disabled transit operations will only cover a fraction of the costs, which means that if the municipality has to pay, say 50%, of the operating deficit, then it is paying a major part of the total costs of the operation. In cost terms disabled transit is more akin to a social service than a subsidized transit operation. Thus, the cost sharing for- mula should follow social service cost sharing formulae, rather than transit cost sharing formulae, Too high a municipal cost would undermine the provincial objec- tives of a new transportation services program. Possibly the Ministry of Community and Social Services could participate in the cost sharing arrange- ment, perhaps on a 75-25-25 MIC/CSS/municipality basis. In any case, alter- native arrangements should be examined prior to establishing policies that simply follow transit subsidies practice, Municipal Flexibility Among the planning considerations by municipalities are use of existing vehicles, especially in off-peak hours. This would be particu- larly appropriate for municipalities with dial-a-bus programs in that the dial-a-bus system might most easily be converted to a service for the hanaicapped in an off-peak period. VII-24 Each municipality would have its own priorities, resource, and interest groups to whom they would respond. In terms of special services, there might be a variety of considerations, including the following: - a given municipality might find it easier to raise money locally through charity for the acquisition of vehicles, while applying for Ministry support to operate its new vehicles - many municipalities will likely prefer to contract out a special service, and in some cases it may be to a commercial operator and in others to a non- profit organization - some municipalities might prefer to use existing taxis to transport many of the disabled rather than make a special contract with commercial operators to provide specific trip services. If it is decided that there should be special services, the Province through the MIC should institute some basic service standards. Otherwise, a charitable organization or possibly a commercial operator might provide relatively poor service and not be properly controlled by the municipality. Specific problems to be avoided are among the follow- ing: - a charitable organization with no special vehicles and reliance on voluntary drivers might provide only irregular service at best - taxi or other commercial operators might provide second priority service to the disabled only when they have no regular passengers to serve at a particular time - charitable or other organizations providing a service primarily to one group of disabled rather than all the members of a defined user group. To ensure good service, it is recommended that the municipa- lities coordinate the special services, and in this role might even operate the dispatch centre, In the long run, it is possible that larger municipalities would incorporate the special services into their regular operation, staffed by drivers paid by the City. The emphasis at present should be on the service roughly equivalent in quality to the regular transit service. The emphasis should net be on providing the service as a charity with indifferent per formance standards. Municipalities may want to operate through an organization that can retain ietvees as casual employees rather than having them unionized, but should endeavour to maintain satisfactory performance standards. Beyond the maintenance of certain provincially specified standards it would appear that municipalities and their transit authori- ties are in the best position to maximize the use of existing equipment and to integrate different programs for improving transportation services generally with those oriented toward the disabled. The programs should succeed provided there is flexibility for municipalities to select the best approach for their problems within the general guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, coupled with proper planning of new services. First Steps The Ministry would have to set ceiling and formula for cost sharing. The ceiling depends on the service option desired, and the cost sharing formula on policies established. VII-25 VII-26 As well, the Ministry might pay for all the costs of promising programs over a limited period as a demonstration of specific operations. This would ensure the operational success of the first services and thus the new program itself. Above all, it appears incumbent upon the Province to develop at least interim policies fairly quickly as a result of current or anticipated pressure on municipalities to provide better transportation services for the disabled. ALTERNATIVE POLICY DIRECTIONS From an analysis of the policy options and their cost and implementation consequences, it would appear that there are three basic directions for the Province, as follows: 1. The Province could endeavour to provide a transit service for the handicapped that approximates the service for the non-handicapped. This would probably incur the full range of costs discussed above. Be The Province could make limited, but substantial, steps in the direction of providing adequate transit service for the disabled. This direction would permit some experimentation and the opportunity to allow policies to develop. 3 The Province could take relatively little action, with the possibility that pressure from municipalities would lead to ad hoc decisions. This direction might result in precedents being established which could commit the Province to an undesirable program applicable to all municipalities. Based on our analysis, we would conclude that ad hoc decisions would not be as appropriate for the Province as an experimental, flexible VII-27 approach that integrated handicapped transit planning within the main- stream of transit planning. One could assume that the handicapped transportation problem will somehow go away, and that there will be no ad hoc decisions. However, the recent local decisions in Metro Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton indicate that municipalities will be dealing with the problem. Given that alternative direction No.3 is not attractive, the Province must establish how far it intends to support disabled trans- portation. Alternative No.1 - a full-scale program - has been outlined above. If the Province were to adopt a more limited program there are a number of choices. The Province could promote, at the local level, modifications to the existing transit system. Or, it could establish an adapted automobile program. However, both these programs would be criticized as peripheral to the main problem, The most feasible limited starting point would be a special service limited in any of the ways we have suggested. It is recognized that a limited special services program may lead to further demands for expanding the services. By this time, however, the Province will have developed greater operating experience and will better appreciate the consequences of more extensive programs and how to develop them, j : ra » ea 7 iy a i) 7 . ie. a seats tom ado nitiiy gatreala 7 ae ; De £9 ™ 7 . ; Aw ye 4 ‘heap ddan! ot tats oie hao. 3 p ou? a i ee om @cd bf, YD acl) DRe Catan cog a a bere a wwaleloah Jeaod sna ¢ a Le & - — 2 io tw eat lay ha Qe i dana rae! dei iu luides Ca Ot citer then sti id ,e¥IIoRi2 og el * ad oat hh wwaaan aie seit ave es : yes _ ! -dnied beldeeth sinqave os Sbastak 4) 3ee ed MRE see sata spetvon a bette VOLS oho = 4 ‘tq, slace-Lina 4 < [, eu ease aes shes egret PS avads ma thotd tint! evew. a ieaba oD ope saat vor oft fayvai i f @nr 35 yhexveg WIntS soniVey® - aire “seit a '- : - . é é (ahaa -? a4 : yt fy" ae CR iPanarwy ¢ i a tle Se ie j iy ; tpaw iat Ww feed —yoveee” | meager olid oo feaeetn as e . vine eo fdesg 7 Lady wits a2 lexem A THC . ; -_ i ® ba (aboog i I } at sq” uw bie bell wet ae “ - mr iT Moonee: ovis il aw 2 an , j a 4 rot thaaseb than? a | =) ‘oss agers vay mn ven ILiw soueveepod ae jeaeavet hee eawelinn Ai & ale eo Ly opalowngge. 2 oof ie mt sages pibIBTeqe APPENDIX A SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH adFAIIS Sut 3syx_ jo uot} deo10g uoFINgyz138 Fd ~Ft38TC DF ydeaZov: snsuvg eq sy ] Tuo 8380) dyay 49FATIFSUES o8er9ay soFid esoding ePOn Aduenbe1g ssoding ePow Aouenbeig 2POW Aouonbeig esoding Asuenbseiaq | Aouenbeag apow 2pow asoding apon Aduenbe1ry esoding 2Ppon Aguenbairg asoding Aouenbeirg esoding 2POn Aouenbe1ry anoyaeyeg dy11, aainjny Inofaeyag dyay, quesaig §129uU,zIeg pur yOFAIEH ‘IeAg InoypAeyeq dyij aaingny Q Jueseig ‘juseU dtnbe [euoy }Tppe jo aouejioduy *snq yQTA Aq[no -TIFFP JO osneo eqep [eotydesZoqzg aed jo AIT TqQe -[}eAe pue os *snqeqs uy asueyd faouet -iedxe jiodsuez3} {quowssesse 20uRm -IOjJieqg ‘*spTte jo esn ‘A41038Ty pur asned AIT TqQestp eqep TeotydesZo0Tq) sdt1q ‘spte jo asn ‘jueuTye jo aanjeu ‘AydeiZo0tg uof3dy1o -sop weqshs SOFITTHGe JUSTO 3sod 9dfAIVS aoinos dutpuny uot ze -N[eBAe [TeuoTZouNy *anotaeysq dt13 *snqeqs smoout pue juemfotd -we ‘kyde1Z0Tg aotjeI Fury 4341 FGQow Fo 4893 [eUCTIOUNy *spyte jo asn *snjeqs amoout pue juemso [day Byep Te otydesZ0qTg spfe jo asf) qsaq uozzouny *a1e2 [eo -Tpew jo Ai04sty ‘eqep Teorqd -eiZ0tq ‘sjueu -o3uel1ie ZUTATT pezsaog sotdoy aiyeuuozy aitey -uo0TAsany spze9‘ siteu -UOTAseny aipyeuuotz -senb peTten spieg ‘eiteu -uofRsend eiteu -uoT3s8enh ulti ‘spzed oiteu -uoF senhH oiteu -uoT3seandh Ss usm} SUT Aaains ainsodxe eTpay pred 3sod ‘3ut {Tew Proyssnoy 700 810[[esunos fq PeTqestp aiem A294} IPF OYA TIV siapi0stp SnoAIeU pue [BUOTIOUS pue uozj}epiejzel [eUsu ADTAIIIUT Teuosisg| BZuz~pn{[ouy setioseAe2 OT| AdTAIIIUT [eucsied ‘saucy sjuepuod -Sa1 3981938 03 auoyd ‘{}yem ‘eTpey @ATIeQuUeseadex deotpuey uo} 3e310dsue23 jo sdnoi3 iofem 6 A[quepuedeaput a e3TAeu oO eTqBun AoueZe YyITA] e804} pue ,,aze8zAeu,, 03 ASTAIeVUT [Teuos -ied uay ‘euoug MOTAIIIUT [euosied ‘auoyg MeTAIeUT [TBuosied suoyd Aq paao, [oz Trew 4q paz zany AeTAIZUT [Teucszed dn-so[{oj euoyd *sj0eqU09 peTten dIMITAIEQUT OF, yoeoiddy eTqeun asoyq, az0z ydao -x9 UMOPYPeIg ou fAsSoW sdno1i3 At {}¥qe -S}p tofew 7] UT LIV A®AING YyATeeH TeUOTIeN 242 WA souepr0s0e Uy BIPIIS ZI UE TIV AQyreaes jo S@TioZeVed ¢ UT TIV pepn{ouy sdnoi9 AVFTFqRS Td “4 uainjes atdoed goog‘ { 10; seizeuuotisenb 973g‘Z SUIT) sefzaqsnpuy TIFAP0°D OOT STIBPOD 977 838} Aousse wory 0¢Z peuanje1 006 ‘Ppe3nqT238Tp soaifeuuotqsenb go0‘s peddestpuey AT TeoT -shyd ¢9¢‘¢ 3uyzquas -aidei setouese 7¢ seTTy Aouese wolz OOT aie iapun peTqestp A[Queuemzed 717 PPTIESTP OOO‘ YT punod splToye=snoy O00 ‘08Z esuodsey pue 3ZTS etTdmes NOILVLIYOdSNVUL OL GALVISa CFTAVSIG AO SAAAWNS T-¥ LIdinxa *peddeotpuey SO Spec [eAeIQ BY QoeU 02 peustsep A, [eof Foeds wejshs uotzej.iodsue13 e3eiedes e 103 JUeM -aignber ay 4ysyTsse oL *u0}F e310dsue13 IoJ puewsp 4uaqe] 03 Spoeu [PIN [ND pue ‘ota ou0de *[BTI0S a3e[21 OL *suofjonpap xeq aqenteag “AIT T}Qe -4o[due uo 3809 pue AQT -1TFqe TFeae Aiodsuez3 fo qoezyje ‘sesuedxe y[aael3 [euotzednss0 ssessy *squemeaoidmy YITA InopAeYyeq [eABz3 peed -JoOFIUe pue sUudozIeI_OTT AATLFGom queseiad ayQ uo UOFASWIOFUF JZIAT TOD oF “Bale BAPII0 02 eTqeTTeae AjqQueseid sedTAIes uot ze,10dsue13 [epfoeds ay ajenTeAe of “AIFTFQoW pte 03 IFFT Aeaiyeqs e& ustsep o] “PPTqEStP 243 FO AIP TAow ayQ ssesse o] “y*d 02 aTqTs -S390ePUF BT uot IBQI0d -8UBI2 YOTYA 03 Quay -X2 942 sUTUIeQepP oO] *s20T Alas WATBey syR ssesse oO] *szeak 9T 1940 peTqes}tp jo iaqumnu 343 aQewy se of oyiejuQ ‘uopucT "p31 2943eD ANnayeq SadTAles peddestpuey Aoue3y uoyqRoeT [oD eed “vid ‘q81nq833Td *AJTSIPATUN uo, [eW-aT3euIre9 uot JeIIOdsuBil IO} pueweg JUSIeT Sib IIM pues uofzeonp” yITePeH toy “y’s’n "oUt PTI3TT “qd 2znqQ2y peddestpuey oq), pue voy Iej,iodsuezy Juewmso, dmg “p31 104389 aneTed 1022 T1eD-PAPII0 peddestpuey ey 10z uozIeQsodsue1zy Aqypsieaqtug uoj,ezsze9 yYIOM TeTI0OS Jo AR[NIeT PeTqestd ey 10; S20TAIVS uoTIeRIiodsuelzy OFiejUDN uIeyZsemM Fo AQZTSIeATU SiseutT3uq Jo AR[NoeyZ peddeotpuey AyTTeopsdéqT 34a 10} jAodsueil ®Zt{[qng eaoidmy] of, “QUI sazepoossy 3qy Sieytiieg [eAeil :peddeszpuen ay JO speeaN uoyzzejIodsue1y sXaaing pue sesnsued uoyze{ndog JO 22TFjO uve yFAg yee Ut peitedmy pue peddestpuey SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH In order to document the travel behaviour of the physically handicapped and their apparent needs in regards to transportation, three separate surveys were conducted. This appendix outlines the survey methodology and approach and provides copies of the questionnaires used (see Exhibit A-2). SURVEY APPROACH As shown in Exhibit A-1, a number of surveys relating to the transportation of the handicapped were reviewed prior to the design of the surveys for this study. Four of them which were particularly relevant from a questionnaire design standpoint are highlighted by an asterisk. After careful consideration, it was decided that the best way to document travel behaviour barriers and future travel of the disabled would be to conduct personal interviews through a structured, partially open-ended questionnaire. Accordingly, a total of 292 interviews in Metro Toronto and 306 from five other Ontario cities of varying popu- lation sizes were conducted as two separate surveys with an almost identical questionnaire (with the subway question and origin/destination deleted from the other cities' survey). The objective of the Metro Toronto and other cities surveys was to determine existing travel behaviour, and if certain improvements were made to existing transportation services or new services added, to estimate their future travel behaviour. Thus, the surveys were designed to obtain data on existing and future travel demand. A third survey, using a mail-out questionnaire, was designed to reach handicapped people from across the province and obtain a much larger data base of the travel behaviour of the physically handicapped. A total of 5,851 questionnaires were sent to physically handicapped people across the province, with a 36% usable replies. The personal interview and mailed questionnaire were both pre- tested by interviewing physically handicapped individuals selected at random from major disability groups. SELECTION OF COMMUNITIES It was agreed initially with the MTC that Metro Toronto would be surveyed. In addition, up to five urban centres as well as Metro- politan Toronto were to be surveyed to obtain a range of city sizes. Twenty cities in total were initially contacted prior to selecting five, which were: Kingston, Sarnia, Thunder Bay, Timmins and Windsor. The criteria of selection included the following: e Geographic location. The communities were to be reasonably representative of different regions in Ontario. e Population size. The selected communities were to include population sizes of 50,000 and under, 50,000 to 150,000, 150,000 to 1,000,000, and Metro Toronto. Ottawa-Carleton was excluded from consideration, since the MTC had helped sponsor another survey of the disabled transportation behaviour for that city. Results from that survey were available for our analysis. INTERVIEWING PROCESS A team of interviewers was hired on a part-time basis solely for the MTC surveys in both Metro and the other cities. In Metro an effort was made to hire the disabled, and of the 12 interviewers hired, seven were physically handicapped. Transportation in many respects became a great problem for the physically handicapped interviewers. Some also found the physical demands of the job of an interviewer difficult. In addition, several of the handicapped hired were severely limited in their participation since they were already very active in a variety of community-oriented positions. At the commencement of the interviewing, an interviewers' briefing was held for all interviewers in Metro Toronto, as well as briefing for the five other cities. The purpose of the survey, design, details of the questionnaire, as well as the approach to the interview were discussed. Interviewer turnover was relatively high, but each new interviewer received a thorough briefing. The Metro Toronto survey was administered from the Toronto office of Peat, Marwick and Partners. In the other cities, a contact person in each city was hired to coordinate the survey team and carry out other research for the study. People already involved in the social services' field regarding the physically handicapped were hired for these purposes. In this way, the local coordinators were able to relate well to the organizations dealing with the physically handicapped in each city. Once the organizations serving the disabled in Toronto made initial contact with the selected sample, the names were then sent to PMP. Each interviewer was given a number of people to call and make final arrangements for a time and place where they could meet and carry out the interview. SAMPLE SELECTION The sampling objective of the survey was to obtain a random sample of the disabled with transportation problems. In Metro Toronto there was emphasis on proportionate representation of major disability groups. In the other cities' survey, the sample size within each city was too small to stratify by disability. The sampling objective, therefore, was to ensure that the sample was representative of the degrees of mobility problems, ranging from those in wheelchairs to those simply with problems in using public transit. In the mail-out question- naire survey, the objective was to obtain a random sample of respondents from provincial government disability benefits recipients. Each of the sampling procedures is discussed below. Metropolitan Toronto To reach all major disability groups all organizations serving the physically handicapped in Metro Toronto were compiled (see Exhibit A-2). These organizations were contacted and asked to estimate the number of disabled they served. It was felt that the elderly would not be fully represented among the disability organizations. Therefore, we included the elderly institutional homes, since there was no other practical way of reaching the elderly handicapped. Children were also believed to be underrepresented by the major disability organizations, since they are looked after by special organizations. Therefore, samples of physically and mentally handicapped children were taken from three separate Boards of Education - Scarborough, East York and Metro - as well as from the Ontario Society for Crippled Children, and Sunnyview School. Some organizations serving the disabled were basically research- rather than service-oriented. Therefore, for some disability groups, it was necessary to obtain names from doctors and hospital special treatment units. A-5 From these estimates, we calculated a sample size on the basis of a proportional number from each disability category. However, a minimum of ten respondents from each disability group was made part of the sample selection procedure. To obtain a random sample, a letter was sent to each of the organizations serving the disabled requesting their cooperation in interviewing the disabled with mobility problems (see Exhibit A-3 at the end of Appendix A). These letters were followed up by telephone calls requesting that the organization select a parti- cular sample size based on our estimates of the proportion of the disabled that organization represented (see Exhibit A-4). The study team then verified that a random sample had been taken. The technique used by organizations to select a random sample was to have them go to the "nth" name on their membership roles or whatever other lists they had. Approximately 30% of those "nth" persons contacted refused to participate in the interview usually because they could not be con- tacted, or because they felt they had no mobility problems. In these instances, the next person on the list was approached. The organization, through which these persons' names appeared on the list, would make the initial approach to the individual, thus avoiding any possible misunderstanding about the intentions of the survey. The organization officials making the contacts were also asked not to mention that this was specifically a transportation survey, but rather a general survey of the needs of the physically handicapped. This procedure was adopted to try to avoid any pre-determined bias prior to the interviews. Other Cities The sample selection in the five other cities differed from Metro Toronto's. The total sample from each city was too small to take meaningful samples of disabled noone in proportion to the disability incidences. Therefore, the sample was drawn from several cooperating organizations stratified according to three mobility categories: - those needing a special van, whether using it or not - those not needing a special van but cannot use public transportation - those who use public transportation without difficulty. Equal representation of the physically handicapped was sought for each of these three groups. Otherwise, the same sampling procedures that were used in the Metro Toronto survey were applied in the other cities' survey. Mail-Out Questionnaire Four agencies involved with distribution of services and financial benefits to the handicapped were contacted to provide a sample of respondents. They were: Rehabilitation Foundation (a private agency with offices throughout the province), Workmen's Compensation Board, Family Benefits and Vocational Rehabilitation Branches of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Agreement on procedures for sampling was reached with each agency as detailed below: Rehabilitation Foundation: every 5th card was selected, including all those caseloads except Toronto's only those representative of a community of 10,000 or more were selected a total of 826 questionnaires were sent out from the Foundation a cover letter from the agency was attached to the questionnaires (see Exhibit A-5a at the end of Appendix A). Workmen's Compensation Board: a computer sample was drawn at random from all those who were classified of being 25% or more disabled only those representative of a community of 10,000 or more were selected a total of 1,247 questionnaires were sent out from Workmen's Compensation Board a cover letter to the questionnaire was enclosed (see Exhibit A-5b). Family Benefits Branch: random sample of those receiving disability pensions only those representative of a community of 10,000 or more a total.of 2,121 questionnaires were sent out from Family Benefits a cover letter to the questionnaire was enclosed (see Exhibit A-5c). Vocational Rehabilitation Branch: random sample from both Maintenance file and Vocational Rehabilitation file (Maintenance file includes those people receiving payments 50% of whom are mentally retarded; Rehabilitation file describes those who have requested benefits but do not receive them) - only those representative of a community of 10,000 or more were selected - a total of 1,657 questionnaires were sent out from Vocational Rehabilitation - cover letter to questionnaire was sent out (see Exhibit A-5d). The response rate of the 5,851 questionnaires that were mailed out is shown on Exhibit A-6 for each agency. VALIDITY OF THE SAMPLE There is no registry or accurate figures of disabled people with mobility problems in Ontario. Nor are there accurate breakdowns of different disability groups. Therefore, the universe of disabled with transportation problems can only be estimated, as explained in more detail in Chapter II. The universe from which the sample was derived is shown as approximately 20,000 in Metro Toronto. This is lower than the estimated total in Metro Toronto, and, therefore, the surveyed sample was drawn from a universe that underrepresents the disabled in Metro Toronto. In the five other cities, the approach to estimate the popu- lation size was the same - through the estimates of organizations serving the disabled. However, since the sample was structured according to mobility limitation, the universe was not as representative of disa- bility groups as was that of Metro Toronto. A number of other sources A-10 used were the Victorian Order of Nurses, Rehabilitation Foundation, and hospitals where the physically handicapped received therapy. In view of the limitations in sample selection, it is difficult to make any estimates of statistical validity of the sample. Each of the three surveys has its sample limitations as discussed, although in each case representative samples were pursued as thoroughly as possible. However, the sample selection techniques appear to have been a substan- tial improvement over previous North American disabled survey experience, and the result is data which can be useful for planning purposes. EXHIBIT A-2a TORONTO PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION If you recall, on the phone I told you I was working for the Ontario Government. I am going to ask you a few questions, which will help determine what improvements might be made for the residents of Ontario who are affected by some sort of physical disability. ILA How does your physical disability prevent you from doing things you would like to do? (LIST IN ORDER MENTIONED): 13 2 e = —— aa ian 3 ra DOES NOT LIMIT ME L_, 2 Of the following statements, which best describes you in terms of mobility? (HAND CARD A) (RECORD ALL MENTIONS ) : 1. MUST STAY IN BED ALL OR MOST OF THE TIME 10-1 2. MUST STAY IN THE HOUSE ALL OR MOST [| OF THE TIME 10-2 3. NEED THE HELP OF ANOTHER PERSON IN GETTING & AROUND 10-3 4, NEED THE HELP OF SOME SPECIAL AID, SUCH AS A CANE OR WHEELCHAIR 10-4 5. DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANOTHER PERSON OR SPECIAL AID BUT HAVE TROUBLE IN GETTING AROUND FREELY 10-5 6, NOT LIMITED IN ANY OF THE ABOVE WAYS AG 7 3(a) I am going to ask about the total amount of travelling you do for all reasons in the City now, Please tell me how many individual trips you take per week in the City. An individual trip is a trip in one direction between any two points. 1. 7 OR MORE INDIVIDUAL TRIPS PER WEEK ii=2 ks 3-6 INDIVIDUAL TRIPS PER WEFK Biers GO TO 3. 1-2 INDIVIDUAL TRIPS PER WEEK elie, ie 1-3 INDIVIDUAL TRIPS PER MONTH 11=4 GO TO ote LESS THAN ONE TRIP PER MONTH ertlnal 6. NEVER GO OUT ia | Go TO (bh) Now we would like to ask you a few questions about the trips vou took during the last seven days. Please think about the last trip you took, Which day was that? (NOTE: ASK ABOUT ALL TRIPS DURING THE PREVIOUS SEVEN DAYS, FILL IN CHART 1). IDENTIFICATIC:: CODE a 2 3 CARD NUMBER 4 GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCE CODE 3(b) 3(a) Om] ie) (NOTE: TF THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT TRAVELLED IN THE LAST SEVEN DAYS ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS AS 3(b) FOR THE LAST THRE! TRIPS TAKEN AND FILI. TN CHART 1) (d) Now vou have told me about the trips you took last week (or month). Would you say you travel less, about the same or more often in other seasons? 1, Less ua! T= 4) 7 About the same fae] 12-2 Bs More often Pa 12-3 (e) (IF LESS OR MORE OFTEN) How many more (or fewer) trips would you take in other seasons? 4(a) Which statement on this card (HAiUD CARD B) best describes your current status? 1. I AM PRESENTLY EMPLOYED FULL TIME 15-1 a 2. I AM PRESENTLY EMPLOYED PART TIME 15-2 i GO TO Q.4(b) 3. I AM PRESENTLY UNEMPLOYED, BUT fa COULD BE EMPLOYED 15-3 4, I AM RETIRED 15-4 [ CO TO Q.4(c) 5, 1 AMA STUDENT 15-5 (et GO TO Q.4(e) 6. 1 AM LOOKING AFTER THE HOUSE OR FAMILY 15-6 [| GO TO Q.4(d) 7. SOMETHING ELSE (SPECIFY) 15-7 | | GO TO Q.4(c) (b) Which of the following statements best describes your current status? (HAND CARD C) l. ABLE TO WORK BUT LIMITED IN AMOUNT OF WORK OR KIND OF WORK 16-1 ae ABLE TO WORK BUT LIMITED IN KIND OR GO TO Q. 5(a) AMOUNT OF OTHER ACTIVITIES 16-2 3. NOT LIMITED IN ANY OF THESE WAYS 16-3 (ia) (c) Which of the following statements best describes your current status? (HAND CARD D) 1. NOT ABLE TO TAKE PART AT ALL IN ANY SOCIAL, RECREATIONAL, SHOPPING OR OTHER LELZURE ACTIVITIES Tay fa 2. ABLE TO TAKE PART IN THE ABOVE ACTIV- GO TO Q. 5(a) ITIES BUT LIMITED IN THE KIND OR AMOUNT OF SUCH ACTIVITIES 7-2 3. NOT LINITED IN ANY OF THESE WAYS 17-3 i) (d) Which of the following statements best describes your current status? (HAND CARD E) 1. ABLE TO KEEP HOUSE BUT LIMITED IN AMOUNT OR KIND OF HOUSEWORK 18-1 ABLE TO KEEP HOUSE BUT LIMITED IN KIND GCOMTOTOR 5 Ca) OR AMOUNT OF OTHER ACTIVITIES 18-2 3. NOT LIMITED IN ANY OF THE ABOVE WAYS dal NOTE TO INTERVIEWER RECORD THE APPROPRIATE ANSWERS FOR EACH TRIP. FOLI.AW IN PAGE 5. FILL IN TIME PERIOD A B Where did this About trip beyin what time (nearest did you Trip No. intersections? stert? il AM | \ PM | 2, \ 3 AM PM 4 | | 1 ba] ia] = ~ = 10 ia? ll ~~ PM 13 AM PM 4 Hae A ial CHART 1 INSTRUCTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR CATEGORIES 5 6 7 c D E F G About how Where did many minutes the trip What was did the end (were) the How How trip take (nearest purpose(s) did much door to inter- of the you did door? section)? trip? ravel? ost? | + | | 24 25 26 27 A B c D E LE : About how Where did Where did mauy minutes the trip What was this About did the end (were) the How How trip begin what time trip take (nearest purpose (s) did much (nearest did you door to inter- of the you did section art? door? section) ! trip? _travel* it cost? PM l ae | 5 G 7 POSSIBLE ANSWERS - More detailed explanation in Interviewers Instructions. A. Record nearest intersection.e.g. Yonge and Eglinton Warden and St. Clair Bay and Bloor. B. What time of day did the trip take place-e.g. 8:15 a.m. round each figure to nearest half hour? C. Count minutes from front door of origin to destination e.§. 15 minutes, 40 minutes, 50 minutes, 60 minutes. D. Record destination nearest intersection e.g. Bay ana lloor Rogers Rd. and Lulinten, ie Trip Purpose: 1l. Work Oe Education he Shopping or Personal Business 4. Leisure, Recreation, Visit Friends 5yr Health Care F. Record their answers under one of these: ie Drove car myself. 8. Took regular taxi. 2. Drove adapted car or 9, Took specially other vehicle myself. arranged taxi. 3h Driven in car by a 10. Took taxi paid for friend or relative. by an organization, 4. Driven in car by dF. Took special van volunteer or equipped to handle volunteer group. wheelchairs. 5. Took bus sponsored 12. Went by ambulance. by organization. ihe Took commuter train. 6. Took TTC bus or streetcar. 14, Walked. the Took subway or combination of bus streetcar and subway. G. Record approximate cost: e.g. $2.50 $6.00 $ 30s (e) Which of the following statements best describes your current status? (HAND CARD F) 7h ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL BUT LIMITED TO CERTAIN [| TYPES OF SCHOOLS OR IN FREQUENCY OF ATTENDANCE 19-1 ae ABLE TO GO TO ANY TYPE OF SCHOOL BUT LIMITED TO TO Q.5(a) IN OTHER ACTIVITIES 19-2 3% NOT LIMITED IN ANY OF THE ABOVE WAYS aA 5(a) Are you actively looking for a job? YES [J NO (] 20-1 20-2 (b) (IF YES), what difficulties do you think you might have in finding a job? FIRST MENTION OTHER MENTIONS is NO DIFFICULTY 21-1 my 22-1 |_| Ze TRANSPORTATION REASONS (ECONOMIC AND OTHER) 21-2 22-2 Bis NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD IT (WORKING) 21-3 22-3 4, PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DISABLED oi 21=4 22-4 Dye DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING INTO BUILDINGS 21-5 22-5 65 OTHER (SPECIFY) 6. Now, how about shopping and personal business that you hve to attend to outside your home. What do you consider the major reasons for you not going out to shop or to conduct personal business more frequently than you do now? (DO NOT READ LIST) FIRST MENTION OTHER MENTIONS 1. | TRANSPORTATION REASONS (ECONOMIC AND OTHER) 23-1 24-1 2. NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD IT (SHOPPING, PERSONAL BUSINESS) 73-7 24-2 3. PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DISABLED 23-3 54,-3 4. DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING INTO BUILDINGS 23-4 Ihat Sn OTHER (SPECIFY) i. Now, how about leisure activities like eating out, sports, enter- tainment, and visiting friends. What are the major reasons for you not participating in leisure activities more frequently than you do now? (DO NOT READ LIST) FIRST MENTION OTHER MENTIONS t. TRANSPORTATION REASONS (ECONOMIC AND OTHER) 25-1 26-1 Qe NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD IT (LEISURE ACTIVITIES) 25-2 26-2| | 3. PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DISABLED 25-3 26-31 | 4. DIFFICULTIES GETTING INTO BUILDINGS 25-4 26-44 _| he OTHER (SPECIFY) ea (a) (b) 9fa) (b) (c) We now want to talk about different types of transportation, such as taxis, vans, and buses and subways. Here we are to talk about taxis which are a main source of transportation for many people. FILL IN THE BOXES APPROPRIATELY WITH NO PROMPTING. Do you use taxis? lot Ves a 2. .No Bea o7-9 27-1 (If YES) Do you have any (c) (If NO) Why do you not problems using taxis? use taxis? nl —— nnn nt Ee Now what about commercial vans? By commercial vans we mean those specially equipped to accommodate wheelchairs. Do you use commercial vans? 1. Yes ES] ts No ee 30-1 30-2 (If YES) Are there any problems (c) (If NO) Why do you not using commercial vans? use commercial vans? Now, what about automobiles? Do you own or have access to an automobile you can drive regularly? Da chapped SE 5321 33=2 10(a) (b) (c) Now, about buses. Which one of the statements on this card best describes your ability to use a bus? (HAND CARD G) BUS 1. CAN USE WITH NO DIFFICULTY BUT ALWAYS Ea USE OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION 34-1 GO TO Q.10(d) 2. 1 USE IT WITH NO DIFFICULTY - 34-2 3. SOME DIFFICULTY BUT STILL CAN TRAVEL ALONE 54-3 4. USED TO DO IT BUT DO NOT ANYMORE is 34—4 GO TO (.10(b) 5. 1 CAN USE IT ONLY IF ACCOMPANIED 34-8 6. CANNOT USE AT ALL waited (IF CATEGORIES #4, #5, #6 in 10(a)). I am going to read a list of statements about difficulties some people have taking a bus. From your own experience tell me for each statement whether each is Very Difficult, Somewhat Difficult or Not At All Difficult to you. Verv Somewhat Not at all Difficult Difficult Da bracrn) tam i Walking distance to and from bus stop s}eyul 35-2 35 if 2. Waiting time at bus stop 36-1 if 36-2 & 36-3 ios ar Boarding and leaving bus 37-1 fra 37-2 eas 37-3 fils: ‘ 4. Getting and out of seat 381 re 38-2 ae 38-3 : 2 i Be Standing in a moving bus 39-1 a 39-2 ed 39-3 * 6 Overcrowding on bus 40-1 | 40-2 et eh [ : 7 Transferring between bus routes 41-1 S 41-2 fray 41-3 a j 8. Knowing which bus to take and al R aa what stop to get off at 42-1 42-2 | | 49-3 1 aro | 9. Not having someone accompany me 43-1 i { 43-2 —_ ‘ - Are there any other things you feel are difficulties in using the bus? RSET SS NS SR A RE RES A RT ST SD, re nr RR A AR A TEES (d) Now, about subways. Which one of the statements on this card best describes your ability to use a subway? (HAND CARD G) SUBWAY 1. CAN USE WITH NO DIFFICULTY BUT ALWAYS i “By USE OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION 3 B CO.TO Oe 2, L USE IT WITH NO DIFFICULTY 45-2 3. SOME DIFFICULTY BUT STILL CAN TRAVEL ALONE ecard | 4. USED TO USE IT BUT DO NOT ANYMORE A seis SG em nye 5. 1 CAN USE IT ONLY IF ACCOMPANIED i3e4 [tna] ,. CANNOT USE AT ALL isco (e) Now how about these problems for the subway. Again tell me which are Very Difficult, Somewhat Difficult, or Not At All Difficult (IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED #4, #5, OR #6 ABOVE ) Very Somewhat Not at all Difficult Difficult Difficult 1. Getting to and from subway w-iL_| se-2{_| -3[_| Be Getting down to the subway 47-1 ie 47-2 a 47-3 sal ; Bie Boarding and leaving the suhway 48-1 Pe} 48-2 jor 48-3 ad 7 4. Getting in and out of seat 49-1 [| 49-2 [rer 49-3 a a Bic Standing in a moving subway car 50-1 [] 50-2 ice 50-3 ie 6. Overcrowding on subway 51-1 roa 51-2 cod 51-3 oa | tho Transferring to or from a bus 52-1 [| 52-2 od 52-3 | 8. Not having someone accompany me 53-1 & 53-2 i 53-3 fee (£) Are there any other things you feel are difficulties in using the subway? Sn eee UE EEE SnEEEEREREESEREEEEEREN ee U UE nEEEEE EEN RE REESE! Ii. Some handicapped people have told us that the reason they do not travel more often is because of people's attitude towards them. From your point of view, tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: AGREE DISAGREE Is The handicapped are an inconvenience to others 55-1 55-2 Bae People make the handicapped feel uncomfortable 56-1 56-2 Shc People are generally uncooperative toward the handicapped 57-1 57-2 4. Bus and taxi drivers are un- - cooperative toward the handicapped neat 58-2 ep eee me ee FUTURE TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR I would now like to ask you a few questions about how your travel might change if some improvements were to be made to certain types of transportation. 12(a) Which of the following improvements in service would be most important to make it easier for you to travel? (HAND CARD H) ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? FIRST OTHER MENTION MENTIONS l. REDUCED RATES FOR SPECIAL EQUIPMENT (LIKE HAND CONTROLS) soa [_ 00-1 IN AUTOMOBILES 60-2 85 NO SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT IS NECESSARY 59-2 fea 3. IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BUS SYSTEM 59-3 [| 60-3 feo TO Q.12(d) 60-4 4. IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SUBWAY SYSTEM 2974 5. A LOWER COST DOOR-TO-DOOR SERVICE EE eke) WITH SPECIALLY DESIGNED VEHICLES 59-5 60-5 GO TO Q.12(b) G. LOWER TAXI FARES 59-6 & 12(c) 60-6 12(d) (b) IF #5 OR #6 SELECTED ASK THE FOLLOWING: If the service that you felt was most important were available at a fare of $.30 per trip, how many additional trips per week would you take for the following purposes? (WRITE IN FIGURE) Work Education Shopping and Personal Business Leisure and Recreation Health Care (c) LF #5 OR #6 SELECTED ASK THE FOLLOWING: If the service that you felt was most important were available at a fare of $2.00 per trip, how many additional trips per week would you take for the following purposes? (WRITE IN FIGURE) Work Education Shopping and Personal Business Leisure and Recreation Health Care CARD B_ (Keypunch Only) (d) IF #3 OR #4 SELECTED ASK THE FOLLOWING: If the service that you felt was most important were available at the present fare, how many additional trips per week would you take for what purposes? (WRITE IN FIGURE) Work Education Shopping and Personal Business Leisure and Recreation Health Care (e) What would be the main purpose of your increased travel if the improvements you suggested were made? 13(a) What do you feel would be a reasonable charge per ride for taxi rides and a special door-to-door service for physically handicapped persons? (DO NOT READ LIST) SPECIAL TAXI DOOR-TO-DOOR RIDES SERVICE ii 30cOR LESS PER RIDE 19-1 eRe | 2 31¢ TO 50¢ PER RIDE 19-2 20-2[ | 3, 51¢ TO 91.00 PER RIDE 19-3| _ | 20-3| | 4, 31.01 TO $1.50 PER RIDE 13 jl 20-4| | 5% $1.51 TO $2.00 PER RIDE 19-5 _| 20-5 _| 6. $2.01 TO $3.00 PER RIDE | rene 20-6 | 7. MORE THAN $3.00 PER RIDE 19-7|_| 20-7[ _| 8. OTHER (SPECIFY) el | 20-8, _| 9. DONT KNOW | 138: bly 20-4 _ | (b) Should the fare you suggest ‘ary according to how far you travel? YES Et fe NO Her [atl (c) Should the fare you suggest vary according to the time of day you travel? YES Pee NO BO 14(a) There are a number of ways of improving the bus, streetcar, anu the subway systems. As I read this list, please tell me whether you feel each is Very Important, Somewhat Import, or Not at All Important to you. Very Somewhat Not At All Important Important Important ne: Better information about the public transportation system and the stops and schedules 23-1 23-2 PE ao \ Ze Special seats on buses and subways for physically ie Lal | | handicapped Dhan 24-2 24-3 3 Hand rails at entrances and exits of buses 25-1 25-2 25-3 4, More vertical grab-bars in buses and subways 26-1 26-2 26=3| De More shelters 6. More seats at bus stops (b) 1f these improvements were made, how many additional trips would vou viwake per week by subway and bus? (WRITE IN FIGURE) (c) Please tell me again whether you feel each of the following items is Very Important, Somewhat Important, or Not at All Important to you. Very Somewhat Not At All Important Important Important 1. Lower steps on buses Sh= 1 5 l= 2. Loading device for wheelchairs 32-1 B= aaa RA ici Bs, Sle EAE REE SEC SE iim Aen mE Se Up-escalators at all subway stations 33-1 33-2 33- Se eke ee ee ee 4. Down-escalators at all subway stations PG (lek 34-2 34- {2 Sees aon ee ee a ee Jie Elevators at all subway stations 35-1 Fes eles (d) If these improvements were made, how many additional trips would you make per week by subway and bus? (WRITE IN FIGURE) (e) Do you have any other suggestions for improvements that might be made to the bus or subway? INTER-CTTY TRAVEL 15(a) Now all along we have been talking about travelling in the city. How often do you travel outside the city per month? (FOR THIS QUESTION COUNT ROUND FRTPS AS ONE TRIP) 1, TRREE OR MORE TIMES PER MONTH wget 2, ONE TO THREE TIMES PER MONTH 39-2 3. LESS THAN ONCE PER MONTH 39-3 4, NEVER 39-5 GO TO Q.15(c) (b) What is the main type of vehicle you use when travel- ling out of the city? Do not include your transportation to or from the station or terminal to connect with the main transportation (DO NOT READ LEST): 1. CAR 40-1 (| aa BUS 40-2 3. TRAIN 40-3 [ie 4. PLANE 40-4 cl 5. COMBINATION (SPECIFY) 40-5 he (c) What is your greatest problem in travelling outside the city? DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 16 17 (a) (b) 19 (4) Just so we can better group our respondents, I would like to ask a few personal questions. First of all, would you please tell me the letter on this card that best corresponds to your age and your total family income? (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 1) AGE: A. UNDER 19 YEARS 42= 1 ie D B. 19 = 30 YEARS 42-2 C. 31 - 45 YEARS 42-3 D. 46 - 65 YEARS 42-4 E. OVER 65 YEARS 42-5 INCOME: K. LESS THAN $1,000 43-1 fi 43 L. $1,000 - $3,000 43-2 M. $3,000 - $5,000 43-3 N. $5,000 - $10,000 43-4 0, $10,000 OR MORE 43-5 44 45 46 47 What would you record as your major disability? DO NOT READ LIST, CHECK APPROPRIATE ANSWERS. RECORD ALL MENTIONS. a) AMPUTATION OF ARM k) MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS b) AMPUTATION OF LEG 1) | STROKES c) VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS m) PARAPLEGIA OR d) HEARING IMPAIRMENTS QUADRAPLUGIA e) CYSTIC FIBROSIS n) BACK/SPINE f) RESPIRATORY DISEASE IMPAIRMENTS g) | RHEUMATOID ARTH. o) ARM IMPAIRMENTS h) | RHEUMATISM p) LEG IMPAIRMENTS i) HEART CONDITION q) EPILEPSY 4) CEREBRAL PALSY r) MUSCULAR DYSTROPIA Ss) HEMOPHILIA t) OTHER (SPECIFY) How many years have you had your disability? (WRITE IN NUMBER OF YEARS) What aids to you use in your everyday activities? (DO NOT READ LIST) 1. | WHEELCHAIR PROSTHETIC APPLIANCE: 2. CANE(S) 6. UPPER BODY 3. | CRUTCH(ES) Pp LOWER BODY 4, WHITE CANE 8. HEARING AID 5. SEEING-EYE DOG 9. OTHER (SPRCTFY) Who are the people you live with? (DO NOT READ LIST) i. LIVE ALONE 54-1 a 2, | WITH PARENTS OR RELATIVES 54-2 i] 5 5, LIVE WITH FRIENDS 54-3 El 4, WITH OWN FAMILY 54-4 Z | L_| 5 IN RESIDENCE OR INSTITUTION 54-5 (b) Do you have any dependents? 5 YES 5s-1| _ | NO 55-2 _| 56 INTERVLEWER TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: meace of Interview Date of Interview Respondent Name Respondent Address Telephone Number Organization Identifying Respondent Length of Interview Signature of Interviewer Comments about how the interview went (if appropriate) r ia EXHIBIT A-2b ONTARIO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE RE: TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS OF THE DISABLED INSTRUCTIONS - There is very little writing involved. Just check the PLEASE DO NOT boxes under the questions as they apply to you. For example WRITE IN _THIS SPACE How old are you? ls Under 19 years 4. 46-64 years i 25 19-30 ag al 65 SeRIE has vents see eM Le ani 0] QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU 6as7iue the In what city do you live? Tee 2. Sex: Male ([_] Female ([_] pe 9 ar How old are you? ry Under 19 years 4, H 46-64 years ey 10 2 19-30 years 5. 65 years and over she 31-45 years 4. What is your total annual family income? (NOTE: All answers to this and other questions are strictly confidential) ‘is Less than $1,000 4, $5,001 - $10,000 in 11 Dae $1,001 - $3,000 5s $10,001 or over ah $3,001 - $5,000 12 13 14 15 5. What are your disabilities? (Please check more than one box if you have Naas | more than one disability) 10. Amputation of arm als Strokes Veg img ae Ee ll. Amputation of leg 225 Paraplegia or Quadraplegia WAG Visual impairments 2s Back/spine impairments 13. Hearing impairments 24. Arm impairments 14. Mental impairments 25% Multiple Sclerosis U5) Cystic Fibrosis Ore Leg impairments 16. Respiratory impairments Di} Epilepsy ae Rheumatoid Arthritis 28. Muscular Dystrophy 18. Rheumatism 29. Hemophilia iG). Heart condition B0is Polio 205 Cerebral Palsy Sle Other (Specify) 6. ‘low long have you had your disability? ILA Less than 1 year 4. Over 10 years i 20 Ze 1-5 years 5. Since birth Shs 6-10 years al Qe), As yA dis What type of special equipment do you use? (Pleas2 check more than one ae i eee box if you use more than one special equipment) 1. None Te eI Prosthetic Device (Upper Ze Wheelchair Body) 3. Canes 8. [_] Prosthetic Device (Lower 4. Crutches Body) Bye White Cane 9. Hearing Aid 6. Seeing Eye Dog 10. Other (Specify) 8. Please check the box that best describes your situation: he ba} I can take local buses with no difficulty in spite of my disability. 2. i I can take local buses, but only with difficulty because of my disability. 5: fe] I cannot take local buses because of my disability but can be driven by taxi or by family or friends, or drive myself. 4, fe] There is no bus system in my community, and I usually am driven by taxi or by family or friends, or drive myself. 5. (_] Because of my disability, the most convenient way to travel is by a special vehicle that can accommodate wheelchairs. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LOCAL BUSES 9.a) Do you use the local bus system? ike Yes Ore No She No bus system exists locally. b) IF NO, why not? (check all that apply to you) ie Physical disability prevents use of local bus system 2 I use taxis or automobiles instead 3% I cannot afford local buses 4. I am uneasy in crowds Bio Other (Please specify) c) IF YES, do you have problems with the local bus system because of your disability? ihe No problems 2s Walking distance to bus stop 3. Waiting time at bus stop 4. Boarding and leaving bus (I have difficulty with the steps) 5. Standing on a moving bus 6. Overcrowding on a bus ihe Transferring between bus lines 8. Drivers are uncooperative or Other (Please specify) QUESTIONS ABOUT TAXIS 10.a) Do you use taxis? Le] Yes [] No b) IF NO, why don't you use taxis? (check those that apply) c) Too expensive Drivers are uncooperative 3 Don't need to take taxis 5 Physically unable to use taxis Other (Please specify) IF YES, do you have problems? (check those that apply) is No problems Be Problems getting in and out of taxis Be Too expensive 4. Drivers are uncooperative 5 Other (Please specify) PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IW IS SrPaCt 25 32 33 34 47 48 49 ll.a) Do you have a driver's license? b) Did you ever have a driver's license? c) Sometimes cars can be adapted for use by the disabled. Would you be d) Do you have a friend or someone in your family who can drive you V2ha) b) c) 13.4) b) c) IF NO, why do you not use a special vehicle? (check those that apply) PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE QUESTIONS ABOUT CARS [a] Yes fe] No a Yes fl No interested in learning to drive such a car? the Would be interested Be Would not be interested S\5 Could not drive even a specially equipped car 4, Too young to drive regularly? [4 Yes (ie) No QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEELCHAIR VANS Do you use a special transportation vehicle that can carry wheelchairs? [] Yes [_] No Service exists, but is too expensive Physically unable to use special service Drivers are uncooperative Other (Please specify) DOfwonr ote . . {|| Don't need special vehicle : Service does not exist in my community a IF YES, do you have problems in using a special vehicle because of your erae ce (check those that apply) No problems C I have problems getting in and out of vehicles Too expensive Drivers are uncooperative Service is not provided as often as I need it Other (Please specify) fo ate fees ey La QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAVEL YOU NOW DO How much do you spend per month on transnortation? (include auto expenses if you have one) ile $O\- $15 4. $46 - $60 ae $16 - $30 Be Over $60 Are you now receiving government assistance specifically for transportation? [_] Yes bal No Does some organization besides government pay part of your travel costs? [ } Yes fey No PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE 14. How many trips have you taken in the last seven days? (NOTE: A round trip to and from work counts as two trips in this section) ple No Trips in Last Seven Days ies 73 IMeom2abrd ps She 3 toro) Erips 4, 7 or More Trips 15. Now, please list in the box below all the trips that you have taken in the last three days (starting with yesterday as the first day). EXAMPLE - Yesterday (Monday), you took a taxi to go shopping, and a taxi to come home. Then you took a bus to visit a friend and he drove you home. This day's trips would then be entered as four trips, taken on Monday, one shopping, one social, and two return home trips. To do this, you took two taxi, one bus, and one auto passenger trip. (Remember, a round trip counts as two trips). Do this for the last three days, starting with yesterday. TRIP DAY OF WHAT WAS THE MAIN HOW HAVE YOU NUMBER THE WEEK PURPOSE OF YOUR TRIP ? 3 TRAVELLED ? THERAPY OR MEDICAL EDUCATION RECREATION PASSENGER bY WHEELCHAIR PERSONAL BUSINESS AS AuTO AS AUTO BY TAXI RETURN MONOAY HONOAY MONDAY MONOAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP 16. This section is provided so that you may list any problems you have with the transportation system in your area, or for any general comments you would care to make. (Use an additional page if necessary) 1314 75.76 EXHIBIT A-3 NOPARINERS a November 27, 1973 10? Organizations Serving the Physically Handicapped in Toronto FROM: Mr. Peter Lyman Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co. SUBJECT: Interviews of Physically Handicapped for Provincial Government The firm of Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co. has been contacted by the Provincial Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTC) to undertake a planning assignment of transportation services for the physically handicapped through- out the Province. Mr. Gerald Clarke has been retained by KPM&Co. to assist in this project. MIC's study should be distinguished from that of the Metropolitan Transpora- tion Plan Review (MITPR) for whom KPM&Co. is also undertaking a planning study. The work we are doing for the MITPR is oriented toward immediate, short-term solutions for Toronto's problems, and is being done in cooperation with the TTC's planning of a pilot project. To ensure that future transportation services are well planned, we are conducting personal interviews of physically handicapped people in Toronto and elsewhere to determine their particular transportation problems and needs. To ensure that the interviews represent a cross-section of the physically handicapped, we want to interview physically handicapped people of every major disability group. The only feasible way of reaching a representative sample of physically handicapped is through organizations serving the physically handicapped in the city. Therefore, KPM&Co. and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is asking for your assistance in identifying and contacting people to interview. Sensitive to the fact that in some respects handi- capped people have been over-interviewed, we would also prefer to have representatives of organizations serving the physically handicapped initially contact prospective interviewees. The selection of those to be interviewed should be as random as possible from each disability group. Furthermore, when arranging an interview, it is important not to specify that the purpose is to identify trans- portation problems, since this might telegraph answers to the first series of questions. We want to obtain as objective information as possible from these interviews. Following the series of interviews, organizations serving the physically handicapped would be asked to review the result for that disability group. In this way, we can better assess whether these results are an accurate reflection of the travel behaviour of physically handicapped people in that group. This briefly summarizes our request to you, and further arrangements should be made with Gerry Clarke and Ms. Lynn Frankel of KPM&Co. We expect to complete the interview questions, initial testing, and making arrangements with individual organizations before the holiday season, and begin inter- viewing in January 1974. poe es . = - » . = > rv Ss EXHIBIT A-4 Disability and Source Sample Size Arthritic and Rheumatic Sufferers ai (samples taken from two major hospitals Heart Sufferers (samples taken from four hospitals) 25 Strike Sufferers (samples taken from Sunnybrook Hospital) 8 CNIB | 10 Hearing Impairments (samples taken from Canadian 10 Hearing Society and Ontario Mission for the Deaf) Canadian Cancer Society 7 Muscular Dystrophy Association Lis Multiple Sclerosis Society 10 Ontario Society for Crippled Children ha Remainder of Schoolchildren (samples taken from 13 three School Boards) Senior Citizens (two Homes for the Aged, 45 two Nursing Homes, two Senior Citizens' Apartments) Cerebral Palsy Association (Bellwoods Park House) 11 Canadian Paraplegic Association (Syndhurst Lodge) . 5 Department of Veterans Affairs 9 Meals-on-Wheels (samples from three 12 Meals-on-Wheels distributors) Tuberculosis and Respiratory Sufferers (samples from 34 three chest clinics in three major hospitals) Mentally Retarded (samples from one workshop, one 21 school, and one mentally retarded residence) Canadian Parkingson's Foundation 8 Spina Bifida Association 4 Metropolitan Toronto Chapter, Ontario Epilepsy Assoc. 10 Total: 292 EXHIBIT A-5a THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD 90 HARBOUR STREET, TORONTO 117, ONTARIO TELEPHONE 362-3411 AREA CODE 416 Dear Sir/Madam: The Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTC) has asked us (through their consultants, Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co.) to cooperate in sending you a questionnaire. The Ministry wants to use the answers to improve transportation for the physically handicapped. The questionnaire has been designed for those persons who have difficulty in using the bus (public transit) system in their area because of their physical handicap. Your assistance in answering all the questions as best you can will help us and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications understand transportation problems of the physically handicapped, so your cooperation is important. The return envelope provided does not need a postage stamp. Just answer the questions and put the questionnaire in the attached envelope. It will then be directed to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Yours truly, CSS A.G. MacDonald, Vice Chairman of Administration. WHEN WRITING THE BOARD PLEASE QUOTE ABOVE FILE NUMBER EXHIBIT A-5a Ministry of Community and Social Services 965-2376 Rehabilitation Services 4the loom, sHepburn, Blk. Parliament Buildings Toronto M7A 1G6 March 5, 1974 Dear Sir/Madam: The Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications has asked the Rehabilitation Bureau to cooperate in sending you the enclosed question- naire. The Ministry hopes to use the information obtained from the questionnaire to plan improved transportation for the physically disabled. The questionnaire has been designed for those persons, who, because of physical disability, have difficulty in using public transit service in their area. If you have no physical disability and you have no difficulties with transportation, you need not fill in the questionnaire. Your assistance in answering all the quest- ions as best you can will help the Ministry of Transportation and Communications as well as other Ministries better understand the transportation problems of the physically disabled. You may mail the questionnaire in the attached envelope. No postage stamp is required. YOUDSMt GILL yy Nechect AS oe HAS/sf Herbert A. Sohn, Director. EXHIBIT A-5b MARCH OF DIMES BASABILITY FUND 8th March, 1974 Hello: The Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTC) has asked us (through their consultants, Kates Peat Marwick & Co.) to co-operate in sending you a question- naire. The Ministry wishes to use the answers to improve transportation for the physically disabled. The questionnaire has been designed for those persons who have difficulty in using the bus (public transit) system in their area because of their physical disability. Your assistance in answering all the questions to the best of your abilitios will help us and the Ministry of Trans- portation and Communications understand the transportation problems of the physically disabled. So your co-operation is important. The return envelope does not need a stamp. Just answer the questionnaire and place it in the enclosed envelope. It will then be directed to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. We do appreciate your assistance. Sincerely, nie: sre Seay Jane Szilvassy (Mrs) Coordinator of Casework and Camping Jorws Encs. Serving Ontario’s Adult Handicapped Rehabilitation Foundation For The Disabled 12 Overlea Bivd., Toronto, Ontario M4H 1A4 EXHIBIT A-5e Ontario Ministry of Parliament Buildings Community and Queen's Park Social Toronto Ontario Services M7A 1E9 Marcieorh,; 9197.4 « Dear Sir/Madam: The Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications has asked us (through their con- Sultants Kates, Peat, Marwick and Co.) to assist them by sending you a questionnaire. The Ministry wants to use your answers, along with the answers of others, to improve transportation for the handi- capped in this Province. The questionnaire has been designed for those persons who have difficulty in using transportation in their area because of their handicap. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions. What we are looking for are the answers that best describe your situation. Your assistance in answering all the questions will help the Ministry of Transportation and Communications understand transportation problems of the handi- capped, so your co-operation is important to us. The return envelope provided does not need a postage stamp. Just answer the questions and put the questionnaire in the attached envelope. It will then be directed to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. All the information is confidential. It will be used for general information purposes only and there is no need to put your name on the questionnaire or the envelope. If you are the trustee for a handicapped person we would appreciate it if you would forward the questionnaire on to him or complete it on his behalf. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, va Wm. G. Smith, DLrector, Provincial Benefits. APR 26 1974 EXHIBIT A~6 se RESPONSE RATE FOR MAIL-OUT QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER RETURNED COMPLETE % RETURNED COMPLETE REHABILITATION FOUNDATION VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION FAMILY BENEFITS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION TOTAL NUMBER RETURNED: (Complete and Incomplete) % TOTAL RETURNS REHABILITATION FOUNDATION VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION FAMILY BENEFITS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION i! Mi a i i] We iW | HY \\ i ee 4 iy ran vii ii a 1 ire 72 yy Hi ON — " ~. ed} f th } 1 ra ALLE: ] j Wie FP . j 7 i i WR He Ml ] a d/, S \, ‘ : * ’ . Sy ~ . vy . = y Se} fe Lh ‘ ma i “if, fis Hh py SS: oy Up Pith A eel ». Vi ‘i a : f SS IN i Mas mt Co os Ne iN ¥ * “' = NWN tin Nh \ Hy ay Me a i